PITCHER MATCHUP

Landen Roupp vs Cincinnati Reds

How the Cincinnati Reds's current regulars (top 9 by at-bats) project against Landen Roupp's season-to-date arsenal — not the posted lineup for any single game.

Landen Roupp's arsenal

Throws RHPvs LHH xwOBA .325vs RHH xwOBA .282Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Sinker 37%Curveball 30%Changeup 19%Cutter 11%Four-Seam Fastball 3%

How the Cincinnati Reds's regulars project

Projected expected wOBA for each of the Cincinnati Reds's top-9-by-AB hitters against Landen Roupp, by batting order. A season-to-date read — lower favors the pitcher.

Lineup avg xwOBA .307
  1. 1 SS Sal Stewart RHB .327
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Sal Stewart
    • Sinker (37% usage) projects to .369 xwOBA over 126 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (30% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 27 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (11% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 32 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (3% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 155 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  2. 2 ED Elly De La Cruz SH .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Elly De La Cruz
    • Sinker (37% usage) projects to .357 xwOBA over 195 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (30% usage) projects to .258 xwOBA over 160 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 292 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (11% usage) projects to .341 xwOBA over 144 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (3% usage) projects to .350 xwOBA over 592 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  3. 3 JB JJ Bleday LHB .314
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. JJ Bleday
    • Sinker (37% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 185 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (30% usage) projects to .341 xwOBA over 77 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .250 xwOBA over 226 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (11% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 99 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (3% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 428 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  4. 4 ES Eugenio Suárez RHB .305
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Eugenio Suárez
    • Sinker (37% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 324 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (30% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 74 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .275 xwOBA over 132 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (11% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 99 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (3% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 524 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  5. 5 MM Matt McLain RHB .305
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Matt McLain
    • Sinker (37% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 194 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (30% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .258 xwOBA over 63 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (11% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (3% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 263 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  6. 6 TS Tyler Stephenson RHB .305
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Tyler Stephenson
    • Sinker (37% usage) projects to .364 xwOBA over 289 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (30% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .245 xwOBA over 86 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (11% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 81 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (3% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 354 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  7. 7 DM Dane Myers RHB .306
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Dane Myers
    • Sinker (37% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 123 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (30% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 40 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 50 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (11% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 46 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (3% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 229 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 TF TJ Friedl LHB .285
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. TJ Friedl
    • Sinker (37% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 220 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (30% usage) projects to .257 xwOBA over 81 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .221 xwOBA over 138 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (11% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 93 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (3% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 454 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  9. 9 KH Ke'Bryan Hayes RHB .299
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ke'Bryan Hayes
    • Sinker (37% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 270 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (30% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 61 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (19% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 81 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (11% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 79 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (3% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 289 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

Next scheduled meeting: 2026-08-26 game page →