PITCHER MATCHUP

Tarik Skubal vs Cincinnati Reds

How the Cincinnati Reds's current regulars (top 9 by at-bats) project against Tarik Skubal's season-to-date arsenal — not the posted lineup for any single game.

Tarik Skubal's arsenal

Throws LHPvs LHH xwOBA .252vs RHH xwOBA .267Seasons 2026–2025–2024
Four-Seam Fastball 33%Changeup 29%Sinker 21%Slider 14%Curveball 4%

How the Cincinnati Reds's regulars project

Projected expected wOBA for each of the Cincinnati Reds's top-9-by-AB hitters against Tarik Skubal, by batting order. A season-to-date read — lower favors the pitcher.

Lineup avg xwOBA .316
  1. 1 SS Sal Stewart RHB .334
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Sal Stewart
    • Four-Seam Fastball (33% usage) projects to .351 xwOBA over 163 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .289 xwOBA over 46 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .378 xwOBA over 137 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (14% usage) projects to .323 xwOBA over 98 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .314 xwOBA over 30 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  2. 2 ED Elly De La Cruz SH .347
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Elly De La Cruz
    • Four-Seam Fastball (33% usage) projects to .373 xwOBA over 599 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .317 xwOBA over 298 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .376 xwOBA over 210 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (14% usage) projects to .328 xwOBA over 213 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .263 xwOBA over 167 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  3. 3 JB JJ Bleday LHB .320
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. JJ Bleday
    • Four-Seam Fastball (33% usage) projects to .351 xwOBA over 438 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .293 xwOBA over 230 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .319 xwOBA over 196 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (14% usage) projects to .296 xwOBA over 194 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .349 xwOBA over 79 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
  4. 4 MM Matt McLain RHB .296
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Matt McLain
    • Four-Seam Fastball (33% usage) projects to .312 xwOBA over 271 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .268 xwOBA over 65 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 207 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (14% usage) projects to .283 xwOBA over 197 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .286 xwOBA over 67 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  5. 5 ES Eugenio Suárez RHB .301
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Eugenio Suárez
    • Four-Seam Fastball (33% usage) projects to .327 xwOBA over 530 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .271 xwOBA over 133 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .308 xwOBA over 333 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (14% usage) projects to .288 xwOBA over 290 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .309 xwOBA over 77 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  6. 6 TS Tyler Stephenson RHB .324
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Tyler Stephenson
    • Four-Seam Fastball (33% usage) projects to .358 xwOBA over 362 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .272 xwOBA over 90 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .371 xwOBA over 300 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Slider (14% usage) projects to .292 xwOBA over 181 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .285 xwOBA over 42 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  7. 7 DM Dane Myers RHB .316
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Dane Myers
    • Four-Seam Fastball (33% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 236 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .343 xwOBA over 53 BIP — a meaningful edge for the batter.
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .333 xwOBA over 128 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (14% usage) projects to .300 xwOBA over 112 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .287 xwOBA over 42 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
  8. 8 TF TJ Friedl LHB .297
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. TJ Friedl
    • Four-Seam Fastball (33% usage) projects to .316 xwOBA over 461 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .258 xwOBA over 139 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .326 xwOBA over 221 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (14% usage) projects to .304 xwOBA over 122 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .252 xwOBA over 82 BIP — a clear edge for the pitcher.
  9. 9 EA Edwin Arroyo SH .313
    Pitch-by-pitch projection vs. Edwin Arroyo
    • Four-Seam Fastball (33% usage) projects to .329 xwOBA over 40 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Changeup (29% usage) projects to .303 xwOBA over 27 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Sinker (21% usage) projects to .318 xwOBA over 14 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Slider (14% usage) projects to .295 xwOBA over 12 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
    • Curveball (4% usage) projects to .291 xwOBA over 20 BIP — a roughly even matchup.
Full pitch-by-pitch breakdown, with pitch-zone heatmaps →

Next scheduled meeting: 2026-09-08 game page →