PITCHER MATCHUP

Martín Pérez vs St. Louis Cardinals

How the St. Louis Cardinals's current regulars (top 9 by at-bats) project against Martín Pérez's season-to-date arsenal — not the posted lineup for any single game.

Martín Pérez's arsenal

Throws LHPvs LHH xwOBA .301vs RHH xwOBA .348Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Sinker 32%Changeup 29%Cutter 24%Curveball 10%Four-Seam Fastball 5%

How the St. Louis Cardinals's regulars project

Projected expected wOBA for each of the St. Louis Cardinals's top-9-by-AB hitters against Martín Pérez, by batting order. A season-to-date read — lower favors the pitcher.

Lineup avg xwOBA .317
  1. 1 AB Alec Burleson LHB .343
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alec Burleson
    • Sinker (32% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 231 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .354 xwOBA over 188 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (24% usage) projects to .346 xwOBA over 115 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (10% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 96 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (5% usage) projects to .370 xwOBA over 460 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  2. 2 JW Jordan Walker RHB .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jordan Walker
    • Sinker (32% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 172 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (24% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (10% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 51 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (5% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 250 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  3. 3 JW JJ Wetherholt LHB .311
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. JJ Wetherholt
    • Sinker (32% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 68 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 35 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (24% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 24 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (10% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 15 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (5% usage) projects to .351 xwOBA over 114 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  4. 4 IH Iván Herrera RHB .343
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Iván Herrera
    • Sinker (32% usage) projects to .347 xwOBA over 227 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (24% usage) projects to .355 xwOBA over 72 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (10% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 70 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (5% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 310 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  5. 5 MW Masyn Winn RHB .305
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Masyn Winn
    • Sinker (32% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 249 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 108 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (24% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 98 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (10% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 81 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (5% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 485 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  6. 6 NC Nathan Church LHB .314
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nathan Church
    • Sinker (32% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 30 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (24% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over 15 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (10% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 15 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (5% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 80 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  7. 7 PP Pedro Pagés RHB .291
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pedro Pagés
    • Sinker (32% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 148 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .257 xwOBA over 73 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (24% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 54 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (10% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (5% usage) projects to .261 xwOBA over 184 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  8. 8 JF José Fermín RHB .307
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. José Fermín
    • Sinker (32% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 61 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 27 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (24% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 20 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (10% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 14 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (5% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 94 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  9. 9 LN Lars Nootbaar LHB .325
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Lars Nootbaar
    • Sinker (32% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 212 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 117 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (24% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 70 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (10% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 43 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (5% usage) projects to .384 xwOBA over 359 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

Next scheduled meeting: 2026-06-30 game page →