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 .357vs 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 .310
  1. 1 AB Alec Burleson LHB .342
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alec Burleson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .362 xwOBA over 524 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .380 xwOBA over 273 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 123 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .352 xwOBA over 127 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 228 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 211 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 106 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .376 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 (19% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 304 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .341 xwOBA over 229 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 68 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 77 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 100 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .274 xwOBA over 187 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 143 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 11 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • 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).
  3. 3 IH Iván Herrera RHB .326
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Iván Herrera
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 384 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over 276 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 87 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .355 xwOBA over 89 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 112 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .353 xwOBA over 191 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 132 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 6 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).
  4. 4 MW Masyn Winn RHB .309
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Masyn Winn
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 534 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 277 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 94 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .293 xwOBA over 112 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 127 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .271 xwOBA over 260 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 140 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).
  5. 5 NC Nathan Church LHB .297
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nathan Church
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .280 xwOBA over 132 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 66 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 40 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 20 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 80 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 66 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% 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).
    • 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 JF José Fermín RHB .294
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. José Fermín
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 148 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 103 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 24 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 34 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 44 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 66 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .272 xwOBA over 28 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .279 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 .279 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 NG Nolan Gorman LHB .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nolan Gorman
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 358 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 119 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .280 xwOBA over 73 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .257 xwOBA over 157 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 145 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 7 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .290 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 .292
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pedro Pagés
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 202 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 158 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 50 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 81 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .277 xwOBA over 123 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .261 xwOBA over 81 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • 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).
    • 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).
  9. 9 VS Victor Scott II LHB .299
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Victor Scott II
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 251 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 140 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 59 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 58 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 71 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over 108 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 49 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 3 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).
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

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