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 .272vs RHH xwOBA .282Seasons 2026–2025
Four-Seam Fastball 40%Changeup 24%Sinker 15%Curveball 9%Slider 9%Cutter 4%

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 .315
  1. 1 OL Otto Lopez RHB .317
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Otto Lopez
    • Four-Seam Fastball (40% usage) projects to .364 xwOBA over 396 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .221 xwOBA over 199 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (15% usage) projects to .361 xwOBA over 346 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (9% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 92 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 281 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (4% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 120 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  2. 2 XE Xavier Edwards SH .311
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Xavier Edwards
    • Four-Seam Fastball (40% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 481 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .264 xwOBA over 205 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (15% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 254 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (9% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 105 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 143 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (4% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 116 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  3. 3 JM Jakob Marsee LHB .300
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jakob Marsee
    • Four-Seam Fastball (40% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 287 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (15% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 134 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (9% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 40 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 93 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (4% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 77 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  4. 4 JS Javier Sanoja RHB .298
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Javier Sanoja
    • Four-Seam Fastball (40% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 233 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .272 xwOBA over 86 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (15% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 163 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (9% usage) projects to .277 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 139 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (4% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 68 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  5. 5 HH Heriberto Hernández RHB .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Heriberto Hernández
    • Four-Seam Fastball (40% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 220 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .271 xwOBA over 76 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (15% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 163 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (9% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 44 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 103 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (4% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 51 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  6. 6 KS Kyle Stowers LHB .320
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Kyle Stowers
    • Four-Seam Fastball (40% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 410 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 157 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (15% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 135 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (9% usage) projects to .378 xwOBA over 63 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 144 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (4% usage) projects to .353 xwOBA over 88 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  7. 7 JM Joe Mack LHB .301
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Joe Mack
    • Four-Seam Fastball (40% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 80 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 47 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (15% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 44 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (9% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 23 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (4% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 28 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 OC Owen Caissie LHB .314
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Owen Caissie
    • Four-Seam Fastball (40% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 95 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 54 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (15% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (9% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 29 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 50 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (4% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 26 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  9. 9 GC Griffin Conine LHB .355
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Griffin Conine
    • Four-Seam Fastball (40% usage) projects to .414 xwOBA over 118 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 76 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (15% usage) projects to .365 xwOBA over 53 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (9% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 37 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (9% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 68 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (4% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over 38 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.