PITCHER MATCHUP

Seth Lugo vs Toronto Blue Jays

How the Toronto Blue Jays'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 Toronto Blue Jays's regulars project

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

Lineup avg xwOBA .312
  1. 1 EC Ernie Clement SH .284
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ernie Clement
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 417 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 307 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .266 xwOBA over 92 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 140 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .274 xwOBA over 187 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .265 xwOBA over 250 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .263 xwOBA over 145 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .264 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  2. 2 KO Kazuma Okamoto RHB .316
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Kazuma Okamoto
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .351 xwOBA over 171 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 120 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 34 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 51 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 57 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 91 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 1 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).
  3. 3 VG Vladimir Guerrero Jr. RHB .346
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Vladimir Guerrero Jr.
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .378 xwOBA over 450 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 462 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .366 xwOBA over 74 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 180 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 211 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 274 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 164 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 11 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .354 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  4. 4 AG Andrés Giménez LHB .297
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Andrés Giménez
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 460 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 230 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 74 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 116 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 171 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .258 xwOBA over 209 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 106 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 8 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).
  5. 5 GS George Springer RHB .332
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. George Springer
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .370 xwOBA over 439 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .342 xwOBA over 373 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 53 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .359 xwOBA over 152 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 160 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 263 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 154 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 10 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% 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).
  6. 6 NL Nathan Lukes LHB .305
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nathan Lukes
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 318 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .274 xwOBA over 147 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 74 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 68 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 103 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 97 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 42 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% 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).
    • 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).
  7. 7 MS Myles Straw RHB .298
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Myles Straw
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 196 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 137 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 15 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 53 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .270 xwOBA over 86 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .262 xwOBA over 29 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .287 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 .287 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  8. 8 AK Alejandro Kirk RHB .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alejandro Kirk
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .351 xwOBA over 276 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 280 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 93 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 109 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 197 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .258 xwOBA over 98 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 .342 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  9. 9 BV Brandon Valenzuela SH .306
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Brandon Valenzuela
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 99 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 31 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 20 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 22 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 35 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 22 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 8 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .304 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 .304 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (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.