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 .319Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Four-Seam Fastball 20%Sinker 17%Curveball 16%Cutter 13%Changeup 9%Slider 8%SV 8%Sweeper 5%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 .323
  1. 1 BN Brandon Nimmo LHB .337
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Brandon Nimmo
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .352 xwOBA over 550 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 249 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 99 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 130 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .365 xwOBA over 132 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 247 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (8% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 93 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .352 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 .318 xwOBA over 273 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .356 xwOBA over 268 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 62 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 73 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over 139 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .270 xwOBA over 206 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (8% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 130 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  3. 3 JJ Josh Jung RHB .321
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Josh Jung
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over 251 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 215 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 54 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 96 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 150 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (8% 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).
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 97 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • 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).
  4. 4 ED Ezequiel Duran RHB .293
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ezequiel Duran
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 191 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 131 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .259 xwOBA over 39 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 54 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 78 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .270 xwOBA over 107 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (8% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 88 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).
  5. 5 CS Corey Seager LHB .357
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Corey Seager
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .381 xwOBA over 275 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 199 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .350 xwOBA over 64 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .383 xwOBA over 113 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .362 xwOBA over 157 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .360 xwOBA over 177 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (8% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 7 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 77 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .406 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  6. 6 JP Joc Pederson LHB .328
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Joc Pederson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .350 xwOBA over 293 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .378 xwOBA over 125 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 74 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over 66 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 140 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 130 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (8% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 40 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).
  7. 7 WL Wyatt Langford RHB .320
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Wyatt Langford
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 366 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 277 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 45 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 85 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .255 xwOBA over 126 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 205 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (8% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 91 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).
  8. 8 KH Kyle Higashioka RHB .306
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Kyle Higashioka
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 176 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 163 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 43 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 74 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 126 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (8% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .275 xwOBA over 54 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  9. 9 AO Alejandro Osuna LHB .319
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alejandro Osuna
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 90 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (17% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 31 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 11 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 27 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .293 xwOBA over 53 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 31 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (8% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 14 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (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.