PITCHER MATCHUP

Sean Newcomb vs St. Louis Cardinals

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

Sean Newcomb's arsenal

Throws LHPvs LHH xwOBA .303vs RHH xwOBA .312Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Four-Seam Fastball 35%SV 27%Sinker 21%Cutter 7%Curveball 5%Changeup 5%Unknown 1%

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

Lineup avg xwOBA .313
  1. 1 JW Jordan Walker RHB .326
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jordan Walker
    • Four-Seam Fastball (35% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 318 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (27% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 11 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 235 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .341 xwOBA over 79 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (5% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 73 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (5% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 101 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  2. 2 AB Alec Burleson LHB .352
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alec Burleson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (35% usage) projects to .373 xwOBA over 532 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (27% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .379 xwOBA over 277 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 130 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (5% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 130 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (5% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 232 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  3. 3 IH Iván Herrera RHB .324
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Iván Herrera
    • Four-Seam Fastball (35% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 397 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (27% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .342 xwOBA over 285 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 90 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (5% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 93 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (5% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 115 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  4. 4 JW JJ Wetherholt LHB .342
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. JJ Wetherholt
    • Four-Seam Fastball (35% usage) projects to .364 xwOBA over 187 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (27% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 125 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (5% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 33 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (5% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  5. 5 MW Masyn Winn RHB .307
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Masyn Winn
    • Four-Seam Fastball (35% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 542 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (27% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 280 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 114 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (5% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 96 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (5% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 128 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  6. 6 NC Nathan Church LHB .278
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nathan Church
    • Four-Seam Fastball (35% usage) projects to .268 xwOBA over 147 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (27% usage) projects to .258 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 73 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 20 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (5% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 45 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (5% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 81 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  7. 7 JF José Fermín RHB .292
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. José Fermín
    • Four-Seam Fastball (35% usage) projects to .266 xwOBA over 153 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (27% 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).
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 110 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 37 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (5% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 26 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (5% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 47 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 NG Nolan Gorman LHB .310
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nolan Gorman
    • Four-Seam Fastball (35% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 365 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (27% usage) projects to .293 xwOBA over 8 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over 122 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (5% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 74 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (5% usage) projects to .254 xwOBA over 160 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  9. 9 PP Pedro Pagés RHB .287
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pedro Pagés
    • Four-Seam Fastball (35% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 206 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (27% 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).
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 160 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (7% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (5% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (5% usage) projects to .250 xwOBA over 83 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.