PITCHER MATCHUP

Reid Detmers vs St. Louis Cardinals

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

Reid Detmers's arsenal

Throws LHPvs LHH xwOBA .312vs RHH xwOBA .281Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Four-Seam Fastball 45%Slider 31%Curveball 14%Changeup 8%Sinker 2%

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 Reid Detmers, by batting order. A season-to-date read — lower favors the pitcher.

Lineup avg xwOBA .315
  1. 1 AB Alec Burleson LHB .341
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alec Burleson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (45% usage) projects to .369 xwOBA over 475 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 182 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (14% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 106 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (8% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 198 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (2% usage) projects to .346 xwOBA over 246 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  2. 2 JW Jordan Walker RHB .324
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jordan Walker
    • Four-Seam Fastball (45% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 268 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 148 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (14% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (8% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 89 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (2% usage) projects to .357 xwOBA over 190 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  3. 3 JW JJ Wetherholt LHB .332
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. JJ Wetherholt
    • Four-Seam Fastball (45% usage) projects to .366 xwOBA over 134 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (14% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 21 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (8% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 44 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (2% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 85 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  4. 4 IH Iván Herrera RHB .328
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Iván Herrera
    • Four-Seam Fastball (45% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 329 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 161 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (14% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 76 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (8% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 94 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (2% usage) projects to .355 xwOBA over 239 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  5. 5 MW Masyn Winn RHB .305
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Masyn Winn
    • Four-Seam Fastball (45% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 497 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 249 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (14% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 86 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (8% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 117 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (2% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 257 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  6. 6 NC Nathan Church LHB .298
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nathan Church
    • Four-Seam Fastball (45% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 92 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (14% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 24 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (8% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 58 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (2% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 36 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  7. 7 JF José Fermín RHB .297
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. José Fermín
    • Four-Seam Fastball (45% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 102 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 46 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (14% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 19 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (8% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 33 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (2% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 74 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 PP Pedro Pagés RHB .286
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pedro Pagés
    • Four-Seam Fastball (45% usage) projects to .272 xwOBA over 188 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 118 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (14% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 50 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (8% usage) projects to .271 xwOBA over 74 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (2% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 152 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  9. 9 LN Lars Nootbaar LHB .320
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Lars Nootbaar
    • Four-Seam Fastball (45% usage) projects to .359 xwOBA over 372 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (31% usage) projects to .272 xwOBA over 146 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Curveball (14% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 45 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (8% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 127 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (2% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 223 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

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