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 .357vs 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 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 YD Yandy Díaz RHB .323
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Yandy Díaz
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .330 xwOBA over 480 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 432 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 109 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 164 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 182 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 272 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 142 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 12 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  2. 2 JC Junior Caminero RHB .333
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Junior Caminero
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .394 xwOBA over 293 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over 336 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 80 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .331 xwOBA over 101 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 148 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 226 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 158 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .341 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 .333
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jonathan Aranda
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .345 xwOBA over 392 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 197 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 62 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .342 xwOBA over 108 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .345 xwOBA over 123 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .338 xwOBA over 129 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 66 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 6 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .380 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 .296
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Chandler Simpson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 363 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .264 xwOBA over 207 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 74 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 96 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 82 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .287 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 .287 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 .343 xwOBA over 314 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 156 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 44 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 67 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 107 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 92 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .326 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 .326 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 .290 xwOBA over 511 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 218 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 93 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 117 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 150 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .251 xwOBA over 169 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .250 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 2 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).
  7. 7 TW Taylor Walls SH .284
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Taylor Walls
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .268 xwOBA over 378 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 137 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 53 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 98 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .241 xwOBA over 103 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .258 xwOBA over 81 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 37 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .275 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 RP Richie Palacios LHB .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Richie Palacios
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 254 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 118 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 60 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .346 xwOBA over 69 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 73 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 28 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 2 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).
  9. 9 JD Jonny DeLuca RHB .292
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jonny DeLuca
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .273 xwOBA over 197 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 136 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 37 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 59 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over 67 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .266 xwOBA over 129 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 70 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .268 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.