PITCHER MATCHUP

Seth Lugo vs Colorado Rockies

How the Colorado Rockies'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 Colorado Rockies's regulars project

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

Lineup avg xwOBA .316
  1. 1 TR TJ Rumfield LHB .328
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. TJ Rumfield
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .346 xwOBA over 164 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 91 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 31 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 51 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 57 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 74 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 51 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% 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).
    • 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).
  2. 2 JM Jake McCarthy LHB .312
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jake McCarthy
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .364 xwOBA over 361 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 198 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 80 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 98 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 142 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 158 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .280 xwOBA over 86 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • 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).
  3. 3 HG Hunter Goodman RHB .327
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Hunter Goodman
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 365 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .371 xwOBA over 186 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 84 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 78 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 133 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 229 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 147 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 10 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  4. 4 ET Ezequiel Tovar RHB .312
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Ezequiel Tovar
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .276 xwOBA over 446 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 216 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 92 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 106 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 137 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 293 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .290 xwOBA over 148 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 8 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  5. 5 TJ Troy Johnston LHB .316
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Troy Johnston
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 147 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .321 xwOBA over 60 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 33 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 68 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 35 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .343 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 MM Mickey Moniak LHB .317
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Mickey Moniak
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 388 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 117 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 102 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 112 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 191 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 152 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 79 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 7 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).
  7. 7 KK Kyle Karros RHB .306
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Kyle Karros
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 168 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 110 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 25 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .320 xwOBA over 31 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .278 xwOBA over 95 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 46 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .314 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 .314 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  8. 8 CN Connor Norby RHB .309
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Connor Norby
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 254 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .372 xwOBA over 161 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .268 xwOBA over 46 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .354 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .259 xwOBA over 98 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .268 xwOBA over 128 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 68 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .292 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 .292 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  9. 9 CC Cole Carrigg SH .316
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Cole Carrigg
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 82 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .324 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 27 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 19 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 46 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 28 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .342 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .342 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.