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 .356vs RHH xwOBA .324Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Four-Seam Fastball 20%Sinker 17%Curveball 16%Cutter 13%Changeup 9%SV 8%Slider 8%Sweeper 5%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 .319
  1. 1 AB Alec Burleson LHB .342
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alec Burleson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .369 xwOBA over 448 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .352 xwOBA over 219 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 93 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .350 xwOBA over 113 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 182 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (8% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 8 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 172 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 85 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .375 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 .320
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jordan Walker
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 240 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 166 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 61 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 79 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (8% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 10 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 128 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 106 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 IH Iván Herrera RHB .338
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Iván Herrera
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 300 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 219 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 66 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .348 xwOBA over 68 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 78 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (8% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .371 xwOBA over 142 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 91 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .348 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 JW JJ Wetherholt LHB .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. JJ Wetherholt
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .368 xwOBA over 99 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 53 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 13 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 23 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 30 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (8% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .275 xwOBA over 31 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 26 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .340 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 .307
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Masyn Winn
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 478 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over 240 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .345 xwOBA over 76 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 97 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 103 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (8% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 225 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 128 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .285 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 .308
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nathan Church
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 73 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 27 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 14 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 13 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 46 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (8% 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).
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 21 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).
  7. 7 PP Pedro Pagés RHB .295
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pedro Pagés
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 180 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 146 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .275 xwOBA over 70 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (8% usage) projects to .275 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 116 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .265 xwOBA over 77 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .275 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 JF José Fermín RHB .297
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. José Fermín
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 87 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 12 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 19 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 22 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (8% 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).
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 36 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 14 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).
  9. 9 BT Bryan Torres LHB .343
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Bryan Torres
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .350 xwOBA over 18 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .360 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .360 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .360 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • SV (8% usage) projects to .360 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 7 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .360 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 .360 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 →

Next scheduled meeting: 2026-06-19 game page →