PITCHER MATCHUP

Seth Lugo vs St. Louis Cardinals

How the St. Louis Cardinals'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 .325Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Four-Seam Fastball 20%Sinker 18%Curveball 16%Cutter 14%Changeup 9%Slider 8%SV 7%Sweeper 6%CS 3%Splitter 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 Seth Lugo, by batting order. A season-to-date read — lower favors the pitcher.

Lineup avg xwOBA .316
  1. 1 AB Alec Burleson LHB .344
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alec Burleson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .372 xwOBA over 481 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .362 xwOBA over 248 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 109 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .356 xwOBA over 120 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 202 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 185 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 95 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .378 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  2. 2 JW Jordan Walker RHB .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jordan Walker
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 272 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .348 xwOBA over 196 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .346 xwOBA over 72 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 92 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 151 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 11 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 121 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  3. 3 JW JJ Wetherholt LHB .320
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. JJ Wetherholt
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .372 xwOBA over 145 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 92 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 22 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 33 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 46 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 49 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .338 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 .301 xwOBA over 34 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  4. 4 IH Iván Herrera RHB .327
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Iván Herrera
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 334 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 242 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 78 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 78 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 94 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 164 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 105 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).
  5. 5 MW Masyn Winn RHB .308
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Masyn Winn
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 505 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 261 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over 87 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 107 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 121 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 250 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 135 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • 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).
  6. 6 NC Nathan Church LHB .300
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nathan Church
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 95 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 37 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 26 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 19 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 60 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .274 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 .291 xwOBA over 30 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .274 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  7. 7 JF José Fermín RHB .298
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. José Fermín
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 109 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 76 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 20 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 27 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 34 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .286 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 .283 xwOBA over 20 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  8. 8 PP Pedro Pagés RHB .293
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pedro Pagés
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 189 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 152 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 50 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .272 xwOBA over 76 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 119 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% 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).
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .265 xwOBA over 79 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • 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).
  9. 9 LN Lars Nootbaar LHB .329
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Lars Nootbaar
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 376 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 227 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 47 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 74 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 127 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 148 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 7 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .351 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (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.