PITCHER MATCHUP

Brandon Woodruff vs Chicago Cubs

How the Chicago Cubs's current regulars (top 9 by at-bats) project against Brandon Woodruff's season-to-date arsenal — not the posted lineup for any single game.

Brandon Woodruff's arsenal

Throws RHPvs LHH xwOBA .228vs RHH xwOBA .269Seasons 2026–2025
Four-Seam Fastball 36%Sinker 25%Changeup 19%Cutter 14%Curveball 4%Sweeper 1%

How the Chicago Cubs's regulars project

Projected expected wOBA for each of the Chicago Cubs's top-9-by-AB hitters against Brandon Woodruff, by batting order. A season-to-date read — lower favors the pitcher.

Lineup avg xwOBA .330
  1. 1 NH Nico Hoerner RHB .318
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nico Hoerner
    • Four-Seam Fastball (36% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 500 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 370 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 138 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 122 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 80 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  2. 2 AB Alex Bregman RHB .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alex Bregman
    • Four-Seam Fastball (36% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 472 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over 356 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 118 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 96 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .251 xwOBA over 61 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  3. 3 PC Pete Crow-Armstrong LHB .338
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pete Crow-Armstrong
    • Four-Seam Fastball (36% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 415 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 171 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .341 xwOBA over 180 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .350 xwOBA over 99 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .351 xwOBA over 106 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  4. 4 MB Michael Busch LHB .342
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Busch
    • Four-Seam Fastball (36% usage) projects to .364 xwOBA over 507 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .351 xwOBA over 200 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 161 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over 132 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 108 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  5. 5 IH Ian Happ SH .335
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ian Happ
    • Four-Seam Fastball (36% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 542 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .377 xwOBA over 197 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .263 xwOBA over 270 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 122 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over 113 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  6. 6 DS Dansby Swanson RHB .337
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Dansby Swanson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (36% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 445 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .367 xwOBA over 288 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .255 xwOBA over 151 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .359 xwOBA over 113 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .275 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  7. 7 SS Seiya Suzuki RHB .349
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Seiya Suzuki
    • Four-Seam Fastball (36% usage) projects to .356 xwOBA over 408 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .404 xwOBA over 304 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 121 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 105 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 92 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 CK Carson Kelly RHB .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Carson Kelly
    • Four-Seam Fastball (36% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 289 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 194 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 77 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 63 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 44 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  9. 9 MS Matt Shaw RHB .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Matt Shaw
    • Four-Seam Fastball (36% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 157 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (25% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 117 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over 59 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 32 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 25 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

Next scheduled meeting: 2026-06-28 game page →