PITCHER MATCHUP

Peter Lambert vs Miami Marlins

How the Miami Marlins'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 .285vs RHH xwOBA .295Seasons 2026–2024
Four-Seam Fastball 32%Changeup 23%Slider 17%SV 9%Cutter 9%Sinker 8%Sweeper 3%Curveball 1%

How the Miami Marlins's regulars project

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

Lineup avg xwOBA .316
  1. 1 OL Otto Lopez RHB .316
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Otto Lopez
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .363 xwOBA over 346 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .228 xwOBA over 163 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (17% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 248 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Cutter (9% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 96 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (8% usage) projects to .378 xwOBA over 297 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (3% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 113 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  2. 2 XE Xavier Edwards SH .314
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Xavier Edwards
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over 447 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 181 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (17% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 126 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Cutter (9% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 110 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (8% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 224 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (3% usage) projects to .346 xwOBA over 70 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  3. 3 JM Jakob Marsee LHB .315
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jakob Marsee
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 223 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 66 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (17% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 69 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Cutter (9% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (8% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 100 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (3% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 34 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  4. 4 LH Liam Hicks LHB .312
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Liam Hicks
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 264 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 91 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (17% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 80 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Cutter (9% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 54 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (8% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 127 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (3% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 32 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  5. 5 KS Kyle Stowers LHB .326
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Kyle Stowers
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 344 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 134 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (17% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 126 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .361 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Cutter (9% usage) projects to .376 xwOBA over 73 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (8% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 120 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (3% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 50 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  6. 6 JS Javier Sanoja RHB .291
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Javier Sanoja
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 192 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (17% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 108 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Cutter (9% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 44 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (8% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 112 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (3% usage) projects to .264 xwOBA over 44 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  7. 7 HH Heriberto Hernández RHB .328
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Heriberto Hernández
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 156 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 51 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (17% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 77 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Cutter (9% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 37 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (8% usage) projects to .352 xwOBA over 109 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (3% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 50 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 JM Joe Mack LHB .321
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Joe Mack
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 47 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 26 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (17% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 24 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Cutter (9% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 14 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (8% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 30 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (3% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 13 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  9. 9 LJ Leo Jiménez RHB .317
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Leo Jiménez
    • Four-Seam Fastball (32% usage) projects to .345 xwOBA over 109 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (23% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 50 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (17% usage) projects to .274 xwOBA over 47 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (9% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Cutter (9% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 22 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (8% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 80 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (3% usage) projects to .259 xwOBA over 29 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

Next scheduled meeting: 2026-07-22 game page →