PITCHER MATCHUP

Seth Lugo vs Chicago Cubs

How the Chicago Cubs'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 .323Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Four-Seam Fastball 19%Sinker 18%Curveball 16%Cutter 14%Changeup 9%Slider 8%SV 7%Sweeper 6%CS 3%Splitter 1%

How the Chicago Cubs's regulars project

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

Lineup avg xwOBA .323
  1. 1 NH Nico Hoerner RHB .310
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nico Hoerner
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 535 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 396 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 128 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 150 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .293 xwOBA over 249 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 7 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 135 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • 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).
  2. 2 AB Alex Bregman RHB .310
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alex Bregman
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 518 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 381 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .255 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 110 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 128 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 242 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 98 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • 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).
  3. 3 MB Michael Busch LHB .332
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Busch
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .364 xwOBA over 550 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .363 xwOBA over 214 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .277 xwOBA over 111 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .341 xwOBA over 137 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 184 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 220 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 107 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .365 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 PC Pete Crow-Armstrong LHB .332
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pete Crow-Armstrong
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 459 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .357 xwOBA over 188 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .354 xwOBA over 111 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 109 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .346 xwOBA over 192 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 195 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 8 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 116 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .352 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 IH Ian Happ SH .332
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ian Happ
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 586 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .374 xwOBA over 205 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over 118 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .354 xwOBA over 134 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 290 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 185 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 99 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).
  6. 6 DS Dansby Swanson RHB .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Dansby Swanson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .355 xwOBA over 475 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 302 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 87 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .373 xwOBA over 125 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .271 xwOBA over 165 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .268 xwOBA over 264 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 8 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 139 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  7. 7 SS Seiya Suzuki RHB .332
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Seiya Suzuki
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .364 xwOBA over 446 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .398 xwOBA over 320 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 97 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 117 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 137 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 274 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 142 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  8. 8 CK Carson Kelly RHB .315
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Carson Kelly
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 310 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 206 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 46 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over 71 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 86 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .261 xwOBA over 166 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 8 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 83 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).
  9. 9 MC Michael Conforto LHB .324
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Conforto
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 417 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .369 xwOBA over 162 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .260 xwOBA over 164 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 126 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 3 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .277 xwOBA over 68 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .319 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 →

Next scheduled meeting: 2026-08-08 game page →