PITCHER MATCHUP

Taj Bradley vs St. Louis Cardinals

How the St. Louis Cardinals's current regulars (top 9 by at-bats) project against Taj Bradley's season-to-date arsenal — not the posted lineup for any single game.

Taj Bradley's arsenal

Throws RHPvs LHH xwOBA .324vs RHH xwOBA .315Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Four-Seam Fastball 42%Cutter 22%Splitter 18%Curveball 12%Sinker 4%Unknown 1%

How the St. Louis Cardinals's regulars project

Projected expected wOBA for each of the St. Louis Cardinals's top-9-by-AB hitters against Taj Bradley, by batting order. A season-to-date read — lower favors the pitcher.

Lineup avg xwOBA .321
  1. 1 JW Jordan Walker RHB .324
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Jordan Walker
    • Four-Seam Fastball (42% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 236 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (22% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 61 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (18% usage) projects to .322 xwOBA over 22 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (12% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (4% usage) projects to .347 xwOBA over 168 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  2. 2 AB Alec Burleson LHB .345
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Alec Burleson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (42% usage) projects to .369 xwOBA over 450 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (22% usage) projects to .348 xwOBA over 111 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Splitter (18% usage) projects to .307 xwOBA over 78 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (12% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 92 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (4% usage) projects to .346 xwOBA over 219 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  3. 3 IH Iván Herrera RHB .331
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Iván Herrera
    • Four-Seam Fastball (42% usage) projects to .339 xwOBA over 298 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (22% usage) projects to .341 xwOBA over 69 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Splitter (18% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 23 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (12% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 66 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (4% usage) projects to .353 xwOBA over 216 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  4. 4 JW JJ Wetherholt LHB .327
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. JJ Wetherholt
    • Four-Seam Fastball (42% usage) projects to .360 xwOBA over 98 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (22% usage) projects to .305 xwOBA over 22 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (18% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 13 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (12% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 13 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (4% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  5. 5 MW Masyn Winn RHB .303
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Masyn Winn
    • Four-Seam Fastball (42% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 474 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (22% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 96 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (18% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 46 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (12% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 78 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (4% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 240 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  6. 6 NC Nathan Church LHB .308
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Nathan Church
    • Four-Seam Fastball (42% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 69 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (22% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 12 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (18% usage) projects to .298 xwOBA over 9 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (12% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 14 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (4% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 26 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  7. 7 PP Pedro Pagés RHB .301
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Pedro Pagés
    • Four-Seam Fastball (42% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 182 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (22% usage) projects to .313 xwOBA over 52 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (18% usage) projects to .315 xwOBA over 21 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (12% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 48 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (4% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 146 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 JF José Fermín RHB .296
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. José Fermín
    • Four-Seam Fastball (42% usage) projects to .294 xwOBA over 83 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Cutter (22% usage) projects to .311 xwOBA over 19 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Splitter (18% 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).
    • Curveball (12% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 13 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (4% usage) projects to .302 xwOBA over 55 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  9. 9 BT Bryan Torres LHB .358
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Bryan Torres
    • Four-Seam Fastball (42% usage) projects to .351 xwOBA over 18 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Cutter (22% usage) projects to .369 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Splitter (18% usage) projects to .369 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Curveball (12% usage) projects to .369 xwOBA over limited BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter (zone profile imputed from overall vs-handedness wOBA — limited per-pitch-type data).
    • Sinker (4% usage) projects to .301 xwOBA over 4 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

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