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 .358vs 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 .320
  1. 1 BN Brandon Nimmo LHB .329
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Brandon Nimmo
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over 665 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 299 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 104 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over 156 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over 173 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 288 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 112 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 .342 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 .324
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jake Burger
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 365 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .363 xwOBA over 318 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 .341 xwOBA over 99 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 174 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .270 xwOBA over 261 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 156 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .311 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 .291
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ezequiel Duran
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 279 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 189 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .269 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 73 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 102 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .269 xwOBA over 167 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 128 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .269 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 WL Wyatt Langford RHB .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Wyatt Langford
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 472 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 324 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 122 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .257 xwOBA over 157 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 249 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 115 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 5 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).
  5. 5 JJ Josh Jung RHB .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Josh Jung
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over 291 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 247 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 58 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .348 xwOBA over 73 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 114 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 177 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .280 xwOBA over 110 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .316 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 .302 xwOBA over 273 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 124 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 42 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over 59 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .272 xwOBA over 122 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 84 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 32 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .299 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 .299 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  7. 7 CS Corey Seager LHB .352
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Corey Seager
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .373 xwOBA over 334 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 243 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 78 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .384 xwOBA over 128 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .366 xwOBA over 178 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 205 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 90 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 7 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .392 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 JP Joc Pederson LHB .333
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Joc Pederson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .347 xwOBA over 353 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .368 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 .282 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 .336 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).
  9. 9 LO Logan O'Hoppe RHB .312
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Logan O'Hoppe
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 314 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 241 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 59 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .364 xwOBA over 72 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 122 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 212 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 144 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .288 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.