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 .355vs RHH xwOBA .325Seasons 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 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 .314
  1. 1 BN Brandon Nimmo LHB .338
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Brandon Nimmo
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .350 xwOBA over 589 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 267 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 102 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 139 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .352 xwOBA over 148 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 256 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .342 xwOBA over 98 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .356 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 .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jake Burger
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 306 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .345 xwOBA over 287 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 67 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .342 xwOBA over 81 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 148 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 230 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 139 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).
  3. 3 ED Ezequiel Duran RHB .292
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ezequiel Duran
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 223 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 148 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .262 xwOBA over 45 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 60 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 89 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .271 xwOBA over 128 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 99 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  4. 4 JP Joc Pederson LHB .336
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Joc Pederson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .364 xwOBA over 321 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .386 xwOBA over 133 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .352 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 155 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .266 xwOBA over 141 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 45 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .348 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 EC Evan Carter LHB .300
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Evan Carter
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 236 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 100 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 44 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 96 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 67 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .313 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 .308 xwOBA over 23 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  6. 6 WL Wyatt Langford RHB .321
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Wyatt Langford
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 394 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 289 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 46 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 99 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .263 xwOBA over 133 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 219 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 100 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  7. 7 AO Alejandro Osuna LHB .314
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alejandro Osuna
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 108 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 40 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 15 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 34 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 70 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 42 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .329 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 .305 xwOBA over 21 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  8. 8 NL Nicky Lopez LHB .291
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nicky Lopez
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 170 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 94 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 44 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 66 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .270 xwOBA over 62 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .261 xwOBA over 91 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% 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).
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 41 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).
  9. 9 JS Josh Smith LHB .310
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Josh Smith
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 415 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .362 xwOBA over 204 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 71 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 104 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .266 xwOBA over 189 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .280 xwOBA over 130 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .325 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.