PITCHER MATCHUP

Seth Lugo vs Chicago White Sox

How the Chicago White Sox'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 Chicago White Sox's regulars project

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

Lineup avg xwOBA .319
  1. 1 MV Miguel Vargas RHB .328
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Miguel Vargas
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .340 xwOBA over 501 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .372 xwOBA over 297 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 74 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .325 xwOBA over 112 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 114 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 196 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 104 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 5 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • CS (3% usage) projects to .349 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 CM Chase Meidroth RHB .306
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Chase Meidroth
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 340 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 231 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 37 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .310 xwOBA over 72 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .293 xwOBA over 121 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .281 xwOBA over 154 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .254 xwOBA over 82 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 6 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).
  3. 3 CM Colson Montgomery LHB .322
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Colson Montgomery
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 302 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 130 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .282 xwOBA over 41 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .430 xwOBA over 58 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 96 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 106 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .260 xwOBA over 66 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .313 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 .313 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  4. 4 SA Sam Antonacci LHB .318
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Sam Antonacci
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 156 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 101 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 19 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 54 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 63 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over 31 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .354 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 .354 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 MM Munetaka Murakami LHB .327
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Munetaka Murakami
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .359 xwOBA over 154 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 64 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .335 xwOBA over 30 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 24 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 46 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 91 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% 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).
    • 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).
  6. 6 TP Tristan Peters LHB .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Tristan Peters
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .344 xwOBA over 142 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 82 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .284 xwOBA over 37 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .332 xwOBA over 40 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 53 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 54 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 15 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .319 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 .319 xwOBA over limited BIP — a roughly even matchup (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
  7. 7 AB Andrew Benintendi LHB .323
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Andrew Benintendi
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 439 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .337 xwOBA over 217 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .336 xwOBA over 72 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 107 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 199 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 192 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .297 xwOBA over 81 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 2 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).
  8. 8 BM Braden Montgomery SH .321
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Braden Montgomery
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .355 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 38 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 22 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .346 xwOBA over 32 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .266 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 34 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 18 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • SV (6% 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).
    • 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).
  9. 9 RG Randal Grichuk RHB .317
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Randal Grichuk
    • Four-Seam Fastball (19% usage) projects to .342 xwOBA over 257 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (18% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 126 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (16% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 33 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (14% usage) projects to .299 xwOBA over 57 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (9% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 127 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (8% usage) projects to .267 xwOBA over 143 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sweeper (7% usage) projects to .355 xwOBA over 50 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • SV (6% 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).
    • 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).
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

Next scheduled meeting: 2026-09-23 game page →