PITCHER MATCHUP

Seth Lugo vs San Francisco Giants

How the San Francisco Giants'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 .326Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Four-Seam Fastball 20%Sinker 18%Curveball 16%Cutter 14%Changeup 9%Slider 8%SV 7%Sweeper 6%CS 3%Splitter 1%

How the San Francisco Giants's regulars project

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

Lineup avg xwOBA .318
  1. 1 RD Rafael Devers LHB .347
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Rafael Devers
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .348 xwOBA over 573 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 279 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .393 xwOBA over 94 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 144 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 181 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .369 xwOBA over 208 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .341 xwOBA over 14 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over 95 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .374 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 LA Luis Arraez LHB .308
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Luis Arraez
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 642 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 346 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 100 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 133 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 148 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 187 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 10 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 85 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).
  3. 3 WA Willy Adames RHB .307
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Willy Adames
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 580 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over 346 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 69 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 137 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .264 xwOBA over 115 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 268 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 142 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  4. 4 CS Casey Schmitt RHB .326
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Casey Schmitt
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 245 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 168 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 43 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 62 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .361 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 130 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .351 xwOBA over 81 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .341 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 JH Jung Hoo Lee LHB .309
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jung Hoo Lee
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 379 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 181 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 77 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 77 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 119 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 139 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 8 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 91 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  6. 6 HR Heliot Ramos RHB .320
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Heliot Ramos
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 402 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 287 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 104 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .366 xwOBA over 85 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 126 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over 239 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .293 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 134 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  7. 7 BE Bryce Eldridge LHB .334
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Bryce Eldridge
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .400 xwOBA over 87 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 14 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .271 xwOBA over 22 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 32 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 36 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% 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).
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 12 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).
  8. 8 DG Drew Gilbert LHB .307
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Drew Gilbert
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 115 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 30 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 27 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .266 xwOBA over 44 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 24 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 28 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  9. 9 DS Daniel Susac RHB .304
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Daniel Susac
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 25 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 29 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 12 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 10 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 15 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .255 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 14 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .255 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 →

Next scheduled meeting: 2026-07-22 game page →