PITCHER MATCHUP

Rhett Lowder vs Chicago Cubs

How the Chicago Cubs's current regulars (top 9 by at-bats) project against Rhett Lowder's season-to-date arsenal — not the posted lineup for any single game.

Rhett Lowder's arsenal

Throws RHPvs LHH xwOBA .379vs RHH xwOBA .317Seasons 2026–2024
Sinker 30%Slider 27%Four-Seam Fastball 21%Changeup 20%Curveball 2%

How the Chicago Cubs's regulars project

Projected expected wOBA for each of the Chicago Cubs's top-9-by-AB hitters against Rhett Lowder, by batting order. A season-to-date read — lower favors the pitcher.

Lineup avg xwOBA .320
  1. 1 NH Nico Hoerner RHB .310
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nico Hoerner
    • Sinker (30% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 448 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (27% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 267 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (21% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 594 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (20% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 165 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (2% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 91 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  2. 2 PC Pete Crow-Armstrong LHB .337
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pete Crow-Armstrong
    • Sinker (30% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 221 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (27% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 222 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (21% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over 526 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (20% usage) projects to .370 xwOBA over 225 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (2% usage) projects to .399 xwOBA over 126 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  3. 3 AB Alex Bregman RHB .318
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alex Bregman
    • Sinker (30% usage) projects to .341 xwOBA over 428 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (27% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 266 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (21% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 566 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (20% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 144 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (2% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  4. 4 MB Michael Busch LHB .332
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Busch
    • Sinker (30% usage) projects to .367 xwOBA over 242 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (27% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 245 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (21% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 612 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (20% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 212 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (2% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 125 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  5. 5 IH Ian Happ SH .318
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ian Happ
    • Sinker (30% usage) projects to .374 xwOBA over 226 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (27% usage) projects to .280 xwOBA over 203 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (21% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 628 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (20% usage) projects to .268 xwOBA over 330 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Curveball (2% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 131 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  6. 6 SS Seiya Suzuki RHB .336
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Seiya Suzuki
    • Sinker (30% usage) projects to .390 xwOBA over 370 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (27% usage) projects to .275 xwOBA over 305 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (21% usage) projects to .375 xwOBA over 496 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (20% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 151 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (2% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 111 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  7. 7 DS Dansby Swanson RHB .304
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Dansby Swanson
    • Sinker (30% usage) projects to .361 xwOBA over 316 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (27% usage) projects to .248 xwOBA over 271 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (21% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 493 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (20% usage) projects to .256 xwOBA over 170 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Curveball (2% usage) projects to .270 xwOBA over 88 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  8. 8 CK Carson Kelly RHB .300
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Carson Kelly
    • Sinker (30% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 234 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (27% usage) projects to .268 xwOBA over 183 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (21% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 345 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (20% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 98 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (2% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  9. 9 MC Michael Conforto LHB .328
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Conforto
    • Sinker (30% usage) projects to .368 xwOBA over 176 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (27% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 138 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (21% usage) projects to .354 xwOBA over 451 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (20% usage) projects to .263 xwOBA over 182 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Curveball (2% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 78 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.