PITCHER MATCHUP

Framber Valdez vs Chicago Cubs

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

Framber Valdez's arsenal

Throws LHPvs LHH xwOBA .264vs RHH xwOBA .317Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Sinker 46%Curveball 31%Changeup 19%Slider 4%Four-Seam Fastball 1%

How the Chicago Cubs's regulars project

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

Lineup avg xwOBA .323
  1. 1 NH Nico Hoerner RHB .304
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nico Hoerner
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 387 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (31% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 147 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (4% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 244 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  2. 2 AB Alex Bregman RHB .311
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alex Bregman
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 376 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (31% usage) projects to .257 xwOBA over 64 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 126 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (4% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 237 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  3. 3 PC Pete Crow-Armstrong LHB .338
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pete Crow-Armstrong
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 182 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (31% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 109 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 187 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (4% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 190 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  4. 4 MB Michael Busch LHB .320
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Busch
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .359 xwOBA over 208 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (31% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 111 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 174 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (4% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 212 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  5. 5 IH Ian Happ SH .330
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ian Happ
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .371 xwOBA over 205 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (31% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 115 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .239 xwOBA over 288 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (4% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 182 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  6. 6 DS Dansby Swanson RHB .308
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Dansby Swanson
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .362 xwOBA over 300 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (31% usage) projects to .261 xwOBA over 86 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .263 xwOBA over 163 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (4% usage) projects to .259 xwOBA over 254 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  7. 7 SS Seiya Suzuki RHB .354
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Seiya Suzuki
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .393 xwOBA over 314 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (31% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 97 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .345 xwOBA over 132 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (4% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 271 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 CK Carson Kelly RHB .320
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Carson Kelly
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 205 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (31% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 45 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 85 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (4% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 162 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  9. 9 MC Michael Conforto LHB .320
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Conforto
    • Sinker (46% usage) projects to .366 xwOBA over 162 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (31% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 161 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (4% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 125 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

Next scheduled meeting: 2026-07-21 game page →