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 .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 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 .313
  1. 1 JW Jordan Walker RHB .323
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jordan Walker
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 318 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .345 xwOBA over 235 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 73 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .356 xwOBA over 79 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 101 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .268 xwOBA over 192 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 149 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 11 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  2. 2 AB Alec Burleson LHB .343
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alec Burleson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .365 xwOBA over 532 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .380 xwOBA over 277 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 130 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .357 xwOBA over 130 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 232 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 216 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 107 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .377 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 IH Iván Herrera RHB .327
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Iván Herrera
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 397 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 285 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 93 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .355 xwOBA over 90 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 115 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .355 xwOBA over 194 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 135 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  4. 4 JW JJ Wetherholt LHB .321
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. JJ Wetherholt
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .367 xwOBA over 187 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 125 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 33 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 66 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 42 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  5. 5 MW Masyn Winn RHB .309
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Masyn Winn
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 542 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 280 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 96 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .293 xwOBA over 114 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 128 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .271 xwOBA over 261 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 142 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .291 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 .295
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nathan Church
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .275 xwOBA over 147 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 73 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 45 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 20 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 81 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 70 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 40 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .282 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 .282 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  7. 7 JF José Fermín RHB .295
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. José Fermín
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 153 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 110 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 26 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 37 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 47 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 69 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .274 xwOBA over 30 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% 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).
    • 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 NG Nolan Gorman LHB .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nolan Gorman
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 365 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .345 xwOBA over 122 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 74 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .257 xwOBA over 160 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 146 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 66 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 8 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  9. 9 PP Pedro Pagés RHB .293
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pedro Pagés
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 206 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 160 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .265 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .275 xwOBA over 125 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .261 xwOBA over 82 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).
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

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