PITCHER MATCHUP

Parker Messick vs Miami Marlins

How the Miami Marlins's current regulars (top 9 by at-bats) project against Parker Messick's season-to-date arsenal — not the posted lineup for any single game.

Parker Messick's arsenal

Throws LHPvs LHH xwOBA .252vs RHH xwOBA .278Seasons 2026–2025
Four-Seam Fastball 37%Changeup 23%Sinker 16%Curveball 11%Slider 8%Cutter 5%

How the Miami Marlins's regulars project

Projected expected wOBA for each of the Miami Marlins's top-9-by-AB hitters against Parker Messick, by batting order. A season-to-date read — lower favors the pitcher.

Lineup avg xwOBA .314
  1. 1 OL Otto Lopez RHB .323
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Otto Lopez
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .369 xwOBA over 362 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .232 xwOBA over 182 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (16% usage) projects to .363 xwOBA over 312 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 88 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 264 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (5% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 106 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  2. 2 XE Xavier Edwards SH .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Xavier Edwards
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .342 xwOBA over 467 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 194 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (16% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 246 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 97 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 138 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (5% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 114 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  3. 3 JM Jakob Marsee LHB .301
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jakob Marsee
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 249 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 70 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (16% usage) projects to .293 xwOBA over 114 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 32 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 78 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (5% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 63 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  4. 4 JS Javier Sanoja RHB .296
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Javier Sanoja
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 207 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .266 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (16% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 130 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 36 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 122 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (5% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 50 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  5. 5 HH Heriberto Hernández RHB .315
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Heriberto Hernández
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 179 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 60 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (16% usage) projects to .345 xwOBA over 128 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 35 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 92 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (5% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 39 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  6. 6 OC Owen Caissie LHB .309
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Owen Caissie
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 88 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 46 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (16% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 25 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 47 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (5% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 23 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  7. 7 JM Joe Mack LHB .304
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Joe Mack
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 61 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 33 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (16% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 35 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 14 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 28 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (5% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 20 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 GC Griffin Conine LHB .348
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Griffin Conine
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .379 xwOBA over 88 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 54 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (16% usage) projects to .354 xwOBA over 36 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 29 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 54 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (5% usage) projects to .361 xwOBA over 24 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  9. 9 LJ Leo Jiménez RHB .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Leo Jiménez
    • Four-Seam Fastball (37% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 115 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (16% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 90 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (11% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 16 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 54 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (5% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 24 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

No meeting currently scheduled — this is a durable season matchup read.