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 .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 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 .312
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nico Hoerner
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 582 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 440 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 91 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 140 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 162 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 265 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 149 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  2. 2 PC Pete Crow-Armstrong LHB .334
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pete Crow-Armstrong
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 515 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .347 xwOBA over 211 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .361 xwOBA over 124 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 122 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .360 xwOBA over 219 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 220 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 127 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 10 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .367 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 AB Alex Bregman RHB .315
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alex Bregman
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 561 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 423 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 129 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 141 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 265 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 109 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 6 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).
  4. 4 MB Michael Busch LHB .334
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Busch
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .361 xwOBA over 605 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .367 xwOBA over 233 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .275 xwOBA over 124 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .346 xwOBA over 146 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 207 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 241 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 117 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 8 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .359 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 SS Seiya Suzuki RHB .329
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Seiya Suzuki
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .373 xwOBA over 491 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .384 xwOBA over 360 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 110 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 127 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 148 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .271 xwOBA over 300 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 159 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  6. 6 IH Ian Happ SH .331
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ian Happ
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 618 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .370 xwOBA over 224 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 130 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .356 xwOBA over 143 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 321 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 199 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 107 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  7. 7 DS Dansby Swanson RHB .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Dansby Swanson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .356 xwOBA over 484 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .359 xwOBA over 314 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 88 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .377 xwOBA over 127 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .269 xwOBA over 168 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .265 xwOBA over 268 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 143 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 8 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .321 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 .311
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Carson Kelly
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 341 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 231 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 96 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .269 xwOBA over 183 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 89 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 8 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .307 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 .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Michael Conforto
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 444 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 175 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 81 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 178 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 135 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .268 xwOBA over 72 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 3 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).
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

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