PITCHER MATCHUP

Seth Lugo vs Athletics

How the Athletics'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 .355vs RHH xwOBA .319Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Four-Seam Fastball 19%Sinker 18%Curveball 16%Cutter 14%Changeup 9%Slider 8%SV 6%Sweeper 6%CS 3%Splitter 1%

How the Athletics's regulars project

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

Lineup avg xwOBA .306
  1. 1 JM Jeff McNeil LHB .310
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jeff McNeil
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 454 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 247 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 62 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 96 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 118 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 176 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 66 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  2. 2 LB Lawrence Butler LHB .327
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Lawrence Butler
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over 472 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 219 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 59 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 118 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .277 xwOBA over 233 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .403 xwOBA over 158 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 72 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  3. 3 HB Henry Bolte RHB .308
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Henry Bolte
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 68 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 79 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 11 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 23 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 25 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 27 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  4. 4 JH Jonah Heim SH .300
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jonah Heim
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 454 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 138 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 58 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .264 xwOBA over 194 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .271 xwOBA over 120 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 7 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 59 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .270 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  5. 5 ZG Zack Gelof RHB .296
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Zack Gelof
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over 270 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 180 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 49 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .357 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 90 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .259 xwOBA over 131 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 92 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  6. 6 CC Carlos Cortes LHB .314
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Carlos Cortes
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .342 xwOBA over 102 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 67 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 24 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over 23 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 49 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 21 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  7. 7 MM Max Muncy RHB .295
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Max Muncy
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 121 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .271 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 23 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 24 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .293 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 72 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .268 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .268 xwOBA over 40 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .268 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  8. 8 DW Donovan Walton LHB .308
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Donovan Walton
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 51 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 15 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 16 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 20 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 20 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  9. 9 AW Alika Williams RHB .293
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alika Williams
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 64 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 8 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 12 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 27 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 30 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .224 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .269 xwOBA over 23 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .224 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.