PITCHER MATCHUP

Seth Lugo vs Houston Astros

How the Houston Astros's current regulars (top 9 by at-bats) project against Seth Lugo's season-to-date arsenal — not the posted lineup for any single game.

Seth Lugo's arsenal

Throws RHPvs LHH xwOBA .358vs RHH xwOBA .312Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Four-Seam Fastball 19%Sinker 18%Curveball 16%Cutter 14%Changeup 9%Slider 8%Sweeper 7%SV 6%CS 3%Splitter 1%

How the Houston Astros's regulars project

Projected expected wOBA for each of the Houston Astros's top-9-by-AB hitters against Seth Lugo, by batting order. A season-to-date read — lower favors the pitcher.

Lineup avg xwOBA .320
  1. 1 CW Christian Walker RHB .308
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Christian Walker
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 514 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .342 xwOBA over 374 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 109 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 126 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 173 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .293 xwOBA over 274 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 143 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 3 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% 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).
  2. 2 YA Yordan Alvarez SH .394
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Yordan Alvarez
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .422 xwOBA over 434 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .404 xwOBA over 235 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .419 xwOBA over 95 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .386 xwOBA over 125 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .382 xwOBA over 161 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .382 xwOBA over 191 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 93 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .438 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  3. 3 IP Isaac Paredes RHB .307
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Isaac Paredes
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 501 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 363 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 92 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 124 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 166 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 232 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .269 xwOBA over 130 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% 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).
  4. 4 JA Jose Altuve RHB .305
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jose Altuve
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 487 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 358 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 86 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 149 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 173 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 343 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .269 xwOBA over 181 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 8 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  5. 5 CS Cam Smith RHB .319
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Cam Smith
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 256 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 260 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 47 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .354 xwOBA over 69 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .293 xwOBA over 101 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 153 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 91 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  6. 6 JP Jeremy Peña RHB .327
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jeremy Peña
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .383 xwOBA over 378 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 344 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 82 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .367 xwOBA over 139 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .293 xwOBA over 147 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .270 xwOBA over 316 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 153 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  7. 7 YD Yainer Diaz RHB .320
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Yainer Diaz
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 322 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 273 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 103 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 117 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 178 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 293 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 170 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 7 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  8. 8 TT Taylor Trammell LHB .297
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Taylor Trammell
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 162 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 25 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 27 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 58 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .269 xwOBA over 43 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .272 xwOBA over 23 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .272 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .272 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  9. 9 BM Brice Matthews RHB .300
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Brice Matthews
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 89 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 13 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over 21 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .265 xwOBA over 31 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .275 xwOBA over 34 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 23 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .269 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .269 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

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