PITCHER MATCHUP

Seth Lugo vs Texas Rangers

How the Texas Rangers'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 Texas Rangers's regulars project

Projected expected wOBA for each of the Texas Rangers'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 BN Brandon Nimmo LHB .333
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Brandon Nimmo
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 652 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 290 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 104 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 151 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .342 xwOBA over 170 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 282 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .347 xwOBA over 105 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .347 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 JB Jake Burger RHB .323
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jake Burger
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .341 xwOBA over 349 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .355 xwOBA over 310 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 72 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 92 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 169 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .274 xwOBA over 251 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 152 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  3. 3 ED Ezequiel Duran RHB .292
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ezequiel Duran
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 269 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 180 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 54 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 69 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 100 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .259 xwOBA over 160 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over 116 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  4. 4 JP Joc Pederson LHB .334
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Joc Pederson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .346 xwOBA over 353 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .373 xwOBA over 143 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 89 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .376 xwOBA over 86 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 177 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .266 xwOBA over 147 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .343 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 WL Wyatt Langford RHB .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Wyatt Langford
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 451 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 318 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 117 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .265 xwOBA over 152 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 242 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 112 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 5 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).
  6. 6 EC Evan Carter LHB .293
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Evan Carter
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 268 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 118 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over 42 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 58 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .263 xwOBA over 117 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .275 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 27 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .297 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 .297 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  7. 7 JJ Josh Jung RHB .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Josh Jung
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over 282 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 238 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .350 xwOBA over 70 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 108 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 172 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .274 xwOBA over 108 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% 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).
    • 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).
  8. 8 CS Corey Seager LHB .353
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Corey Seager
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .380 xwOBA over 323 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 224 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .385 xwOBA over 125 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .370 xwOBA over 174 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .346 xwOBA over 203 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 84 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 7 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .393 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  9. 9 NL Nicky Lopez LHB .288
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nicky Lopez
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 191 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 105 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 47 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 72 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .264 xwOBA over 73 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .249 xwOBA over 97 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .277 xwOBA over 49 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .266 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 .266 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 →

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