PITCHER MATCHUP

Peter Lambert vs Los Angeles Angels

How the Los Angeles Angels's current regulars (top 9 by at-bats) project against Peter Lambert's season-to-date arsenal — not the posted lineup for any single game.

Peter Lambert's arsenal

Throws RHPvs LHH xwOBA .311vs RHH xwOBA .283Seasons 2026–2024
Four-Seam Fastball 32%Changeup 24%Slider 13%Cutter 10%Sinker 9%SV 9%Sweeper 4%

How the Los Angeles Angels's regulars project

Projected expected wOBA for each of the Los Angeles Angels's top-9-by-AB hitters against Peter Lambert, by batting order. A season-to-date read — lower favors the pitcher.

Lineup avg xwOBA .306
  1. 1 ZN Zach Neto RHB .317
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Zach Neto
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .360 xwOBA over 479 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .251 xwOBA over 164 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (13% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 300 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (10% usage) projects to .374 xwOBA over 125 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (9% usage) projects to .346 xwOBA over 346 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 8 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (4% usage) projects to .262 xwOBA over 185 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  2. 2 MT Mike Trout RHB .342
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Mike Trout
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .370 xwOBA over 530 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 103 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (13% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 135 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (10% usage) projects to .342 xwOBA over 92 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (9% usage) projects to .391 xwOBA over 199 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 3 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (4% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 85 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  3. 3 VG Vaughn Grissom RHB .306
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Vaughn Grissom
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 135 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 53 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (13% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 87 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (10% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 39 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (9% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 111 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sweeper (4% usage) projects to .271 xwOBA over 54 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  4. 4 NS Nolan Schanuel SH .310
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nolan Schanuel
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 535 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .252 xwOBA over 177 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (13% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 183 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (10% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over 138 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (9% usage) projects to .341 xwOBA over 246 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (4% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 95 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  5. 5 OP Oswald Peraza RHB .284
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Oswald Peraza
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 167 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 68 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (13% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 85 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (10% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 47 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (9% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 123 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .254 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sweeper (4% usage) projects to .261 xwOBA over 57 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  6. 6 MB Moisés Ballesteros LHB .304
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Moisés Ballesteros
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 121 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 66 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (13% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (10% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 27 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (9% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 47 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sweeper (4% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 17 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  7. 7 JL Josh Lowe LHB .296
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Josh Lowe
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 339 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 140 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (13% usage) projects to .246 xwOBA over 154 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (10% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 101 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (9% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 141 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (4% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 WM Wade Meckler LHB .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Wade Meckler
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 108 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 31 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (13% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 29 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (10% usage) projects to .342 xwOBA over 26 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (9% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sweeper (4% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 19 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  9. 9 DG Denzer Guzman RHB .285
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Denzer Guzman
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .272 xwOBA over 84 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Changeup (24% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 34 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (13% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 50 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (10% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 32 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (9% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .254 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sweeper (4% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

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