PITCHER MATCHUP

Seth Lugo vs Tampa Bay Rays

How the Tampa Bay Rays'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 .318Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Four-Seam Fastball 20%Sinker 18%Curveball 16%Cutter 13%Changeup 9%Slider 8%SV 7%Sweeper 5%CS 3%Splitter 1%

How the Tampa Bay Rays's regulars project

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

Lineup avg xwOBA .308
  1. 1 JC Junior Caminero RHB .331
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Junior Caminero
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .365 xwOBA over 237 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 263 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 64 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 81 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 115 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 177 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 122 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).
  2. 2 YD Yandy Díaz RHB .326
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Yandy Díaz
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .341 xwOBA over 395 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .356 xwOBA over 352 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 87 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 139 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 159 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over 232 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 12 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 126 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • 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).
  3. 3 CS Chandler Simpson LHB .300
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Chandler Simpson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 260 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .275 xwOBA over 143 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 50 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 68 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% 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 .329 xwOBA over 40 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • 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).
  4. 4 JA Jonathan Aranda LHB .342
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jonathan Aranda
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .359 xwOBA over 280 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 147 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 45 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .361 xwOBA over 82 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .354 xwOBA over 87 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over 99 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 56 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .401 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 CM Cedric Mullins LHB .291
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Cedric Mullins
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .277 xwOBA over 436 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 189 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 79 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .293 xwOBA over 104 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 135 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 140 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .280 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 .253 xwOBA over 75 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .280 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  6. 6 NF Nick Fortes RHB .287
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nick Fortes
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 208 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 177 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 36 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 60 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .271 xwOBA over 79 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .248 xwOBA over 94 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 3 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  7. 7 TW Taylor Walls SH .287
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Taylor Walls
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .265 xwOBA over 300 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 102 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 80 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .255 xwOBA over 81 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .280 xwOBA over 69 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 36 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .271 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  8. 8 BW Ben Williamson RHB .299
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ben Williamson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 134 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 79 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 21 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 39 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 88 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over limited BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sweeper (5% usage) projects to .279 xwOBA over 44 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .279 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 RP Richie Palacios LHB .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Richie Palacios
    • Four-Seam Fastball (20% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 193 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 79 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 37 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (13% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 47 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 58 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .323 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 .315 xwOBA over 24 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .323 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 →

Next scheduled meeting: 2026-06-25 game page →