PITCHER MATCHUP

Jose Quintana vs Chicago White Sox

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

Jose Quintana's arsenal

Throws LHPvs LHH xwOBA .338vs RHH xwOBA .350Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Sinker 35%Changeup 21%Four-Seam Fastball 19%Curveball 16%SV 9%

How the Chicago White Sox's regulars project

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

Lineup avg xwOBA .317
  1. 1 MV Miguel Vargas RHB .334
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Miguel Vargas
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .362 xwOBA over 299 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (21% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 116 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 507 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  2. 2 CM Chase Meidroth RHB .312
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Chase Meidroth
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 234 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (21% usage) projects to .272 xwOBA over 124 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over 344 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 37 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  3. 3 CM Colson Montgomery LHB .303
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Colson Montgomery
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 132 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (21% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 96 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 306 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .280 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  4. 4 SA Sam Antonacci LHB .318
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Sam Antonacci
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 104 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (21% usage) projects to .280 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .341 xwOBA over 159 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 20 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  5. 5 MM Munetaka Murakami LHB .338
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Munetaka Murakami
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over 68 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (21% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 47 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .353 xwOBA over 156 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 32 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .354 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  6. 6 TP Tristan Peters LHB .304
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Tristan Peters
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (21% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 53 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 143 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 39 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  7. 7 AB Andrew Benintendi LHB .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Andrew Benintendi
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 218 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (21% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 199 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 440 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 74 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 2 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 BM Braden Montgomery SH .300
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Braden Montgomery
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (21% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 91 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 22 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  9. 9 RG Randal Grichuk RHB .324
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Randal Grichuk
    • Sinker (35% usage) projects to .347 xwOBA over 127 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (21% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 127 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 261 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 34 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .371 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

Next scheduled meeting: 2026-09-26 game page →