PITCHER MATCHUP

Cionel Pérez vs Kansas City Royals

How the Kansas City Royals's current regulars (top 9 by at-bats) project against Cionel Pérez's season-to-date arsenal — not the posted lineup for any single game.

Cionel Pérez's arsenal

Throws LHPvs LHH xwOBA .312vs RHH xwOBA .358Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Sinker 35%SV 28%Four-Seam Fastball 18%Curveball 11%Slider 7%Cutter 1%

How the Kansas City Royals's regulars project

Projected expected wOBA for each of the Kansas City Royals's top-9-by-AB hitters against Cionel Pérez, by batting order. A season-to-date read — lower favors the pitcher.

Lineup avg xwOBA .317
  1. 1 BW Bobby Witt Jr. RHB .359
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Bobby Witt Jr.
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .374 xwOBA over 292 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (28% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 10 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (18% usage) projects to .351 xwOBA over 454 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .362 xwOBA over 90 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (7% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 302 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  2. 2 SP Salvador Perez RHB .351
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Salvador Perez
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .402 xwOBA over 250 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (28% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 15 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (18% usage) projects to .352 xwOBA over 420 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 105 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (7% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 264 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  3. 3 JC Jac Caglianone LHB .326
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jac Caglianone
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (28% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Four-Seam Fastball (18% usage) projects to .370 xwOBA over 143 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 40 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (7% usage) projects to .389 xwOBA over 78 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  4. 4 CJ Carter Jensen LHB .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Carter Jensen
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (28% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Four-Seam Fastball (18% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 113 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 23 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (7% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  5. 5 IC Isaac Collins SH .299
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Isaac Collins
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 101 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (28% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Four-Seam Fastball (18% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 337 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 39 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (7% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  6. 6 MM Michael Massey LHB .280
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Massey
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 105 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (28% usage) projects to .219 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Four-Seam Fastball (18% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 306 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 37 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (7% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 90 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  7. 7 LT Lane Thomas RHB .306
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Lane Thomas
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 193 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (28% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (18% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 277 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 47 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (7% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 135 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 NL Nick Loftin RHB .306
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nick Loftin
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 101 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (28% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Four-Seam Fastball (18% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 179 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 21 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (7% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 76 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  9. 9 SM Starling Marte RHB .309
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Starling Marte
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 145 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (28% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 2 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (18% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 224 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 60 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (7% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 147 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

Next scheduled meeting: 2026-07-07 game page →