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 .323Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Four-Seam Fastball 19%Sinker 18%Curveball 16%Cutter 14%Changeup 9%Slider 8%SV 7%Sweeper 6%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 .307
  1. 1 JC Junior Caminero RHB .337
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Junior Caminero
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .391 xwOBA over 260 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 297 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over 69 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .334 xwOBA over 87 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 133 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 201 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 139 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .350 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 .324
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Yandy Díaz
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over 428 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 387 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 100 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 155 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 170 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .354 xwOBA over 249 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 12 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 129 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .345 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 JA Jonathan Aranda LHB .336
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jonathan Aranda
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 318 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 173 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 51 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .350 xwOBA over 99 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 107 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 116 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 63 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .390 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  4. 4 CS Chandler Simpson LHB .299
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Chandler Simpson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 299 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 163 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 42 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 59 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 71 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .289 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 .326 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  5. 5 LH Liam Hicks LHB .311
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Liam Hicks
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 273 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 135 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 57 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 94 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 82 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (7% 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).
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 35 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • 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).
  6. 6 CM Cedric Mullins LHB .289
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Cedric Mullins
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 469 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 202 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 87 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 109 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 142 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .265 xwOBA over 158 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 2 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .246 xwOBA over 78 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).
  7. 7 TW Taylor Walls SH .284
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Taylor Walls
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 336 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 119 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 49 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 92 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .248 xwOBA over 93 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .263 xwOBA over 77 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 36 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • 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).
  8. 8 BW Ben Williamson RHB .296
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ben Williamson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 155 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 95 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 23 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 44 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 51 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 100 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% 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).
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 46 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).
  9. 9 NF Nick Fortes RHB .289
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nick Fortes
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .270 xwOBA over 221 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 195 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 42 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .272 xwOBA over 80 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .265 xwOBA over 113 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (7% usage) projects to .306 xwOBA over 3 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (6% usage) projects to .280 xwOBA over 66 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).
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

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