St. Louis Cardinals vs Pittsburgh Pirates Match Player Stats
The st. louis cardinals vs pittsburgh pirates match player stats from April 30, 2026, tell a much more detailed story than the final 10-5 score alone. The Cardinals produced 13 hits, converted five of 10 opportunities with runners in scoring position, and received three-RBI performances from Alec Burleson and Jordan Walker. Pittsburgh managed seven hits and went just 1-for-6 with runners in scoring position. The result was a convincing Cardinals victory at PNC Park in Pittsburgh, with St. Louis controlling the most important offensive moments of the game.
The Cardinals entered the contest with an 18-13 record and an 11-5 mark on the road according to the supplied game data. Pittsburgh was listed at 16-16 overall and 8-9 at home. Those records provide useful context, but the individual performances explain how this particular game developed.
The most important numbers are easy to identify. St. Louis scored 10 runs from 13 hits, while Pittsburgh scored five runs from seven hits. The Cardinals hit two home runs and the Pirates hit one. St. Louis also had the stronger performance with runners in scoring position, an area that often determines whether a team turns baserunners into actual runs.
Game Overview
The game took place at PNC Park in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with an attendance of 12,143. The listed game time was 3:05, while the supplied start time was 9:35 PM. MLB.TV was listed as the coverage provider.
The Cardinals established control early. They scored three runs in the first inning, immediately putting pressure on Pittsburgh’s pitching staff. St. Louis then added one run in the third and another in the fifth before producing a major four-run offensive burst in the eighth inning. A further run was also recorded for St. Louis in the eighth in the supplied scoring summary.
Pittsburgh did not go quietly. The Pirates scored once in the fourth inning, twice in the fifth, once in the seventh, and once in the ninth. However, their offense could not maintain the same level of production as St. Louis.
The final team totals were:
| Team | Runs | Hits | Errors | Home Runs | RISP |
| Cardinals | 10 | 13 | 1 | 2 | 5-for-10 |
| Pirates | 5 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 1-for-6 |
The difference in offensive efficiency is especially important. Pittsburgh actually received six walks compared with three for St. Louis, yet the Pirates still finished five runs behind. That shows that simply putting runners on base was not enough. The Cardinals did a much better job of turning their opportunities into productive plate appearances.
st. louis cardinals vs pittsburgh pirates match player stats
Looking closely at the st. louis cardinals vs pittsburgh pirates match player stats reveals several individual performances that shaped the outcome.
For St. Louis, Alec Burleson was one of the central offensive figures. He collected three hits and drove in three runs. Jordan Walker added two hits, one run, three RBIs, and a home run. Jacob Wilson was not listed among the supplied top hitters, but Jordan Wetherholt stood out with two hits, two runs, one RBI, and a home run.
The Cardinals also received a two-RBI contribution from Church. Nolan Gorman added one RBI, while the team’s overall production reached 10 runs and 10 RBIs.
Pittsburgh’s strongest offensive contributors were Bryan Reynolds and Brandon Lowe. Reynolds recorded two hits, scored one run, and drove in two runs. Lowe also collected two hits and produced one RBI while hitting a home run.
The supplied data identifies the main individual offensive leaders as follows:
Cardinals offensive leaders
- Alec Burleson: 3 hits, 3 RBIs
- Jordan Walker: 2 hits, 1 run, 3 RBIs, 1 home run
- Jordan Wetherholt: 2 hits, 2 runs, 1 RBI, 1 home run
- Church: 2 RBIs and a double
- Nolan Gorman: 1 RBI
Pirates offensive leaders
- Bryan Reynolds: 2 hits, 1 run, 2 RBIs, 1 double
- Brandon Lowe: 2 hits, 1 run, 1 RBI, 1 home run
- Horwitz: 1 RBI
- Lowe: also recorded a double according to the supplied extra-base-hit data
These performances demonstrate why the final score cannot be understood simply by looking at the number of hits. St. Louis had six more hits, but it also produced significantly more damage from those opportunities.
Alec Burleson’s Three-Hit Performance
Alec Burleson’s three-hit performance was one of the clearest offensive highlights for St. Louis.
Burleson finished with three hits and three RBIs. That combination is particularly valuable because it indicates that his contribution was not limited to reaching base. His plate appearances directly contributed to the scoreboard.
Three RBIs represented 30 percent of the Cardinals’ 10 runs. While RBIs are influenced by the performance of teammates who reach base ahead of a hitter, the figure still illustrates the impact Burleson had on the game.
His performance also helped distribute the offensive pressure across the St. Louis lineup. Instead of depending entirely on home runs, the Cardinals produced 13 total hits and used multiple players to move runners and bring them home.
Jordan Walker’s Power Impact
Jordan Walker supplied one of the Cardinals’ two home runs.
His final supplied line was two hits, one run, three RBIs, and one home run. Like Burleson, Walker finished with three RBIs, giving the pair six combined RBIs.
Walker therefore accounted for three of St. Louis’ runs through his own scoring or driving in teammates, while also providing one of the team’s most important extra-base hits.
The home run was significant because Pittsburgh’s pitching staff allowed only two home runs in the game. St. Louis made those two opportunities count.
Jordan Wetherholt Adds Another Home Run
Jordan Wetherholt provided another major contribution for St. Louis.
He finished with two hits, two runs, one RBI, and one home run. The two runs scored were especially useful because the Cardinals consistently placed pressure on Pittsburgh’s pitching.
Wetherholt’s performance also demonstrates the broader offensive balance of the Cardinals. Burleson and Walker provided three-RBI performances, while Wetherholt combined power, hitting, and run production.
St. Louis therefore had multiple players contributing in different ways rather than relying on a single offensive star.
Bryan Reynolds Leads Pittsburgh’s Offense
Bryan Reynolds was Pittsburgh’s most productive hitter according to the supplied data.
He recorded two hits, one run, and two RBIs, while also hitting a double. His two RBIs represented half of the four RBIs credited to the Pirates’ team batting line.
Reynolds was therefore responsible for a substantial share of Pittsburgh’s productive offensive output. His double also gave the Pirates an important extra-base hit.
However, Pittsburgh needed more production from the rest of the lineup. The Pirates finished with only seven hits overall, and their 1-for-6 performance with runners in scoring position limited their ability to convert opportunities into runs.
Brandon Lowe Provides Pittsburgh’s Home Run
Brandon Lowe supplied Pittsburgh’s only home run.
His listed contribution was two hits, one run, one RBI, and one home run. The home run gave the Pirates some power production, but it was not enough to match St. Louis’s two-homer performance.
Lowe’s two hits were also part of Pittsburgh’s seven-hit total. Along with Reynolds, he was one of the team’s primary sources of offensive production.
The larger issue for Pittsburgh was not the complete absence of individual production. Instead, the problem was that too few of those individual successes were combined into sustained scoring opportunities.
Pitching Comparison
The pitching numbers provide another important explanation for the result.
Paul Skenes was listed as Pittsburgh’s losing pitcher with a 4-2 record. His line was:
- 5.0 innings
- 7 hits
- 3 earned runs
- 9 strikeouts
- 0 walks
At first glance, the nine strikeouts and zero walks stand out. Skenes generated a large number of missed bats and did not issue a walk. However, St. Louis still collected seven hits against him in five innings.
That combination is important. A pitcher can record many strikeouts and still allow significant offensive damage when opposing hitters make productive contact with the pitches they do hit.
Skenes was charged with three earned runs, but the Cardinals eventually scored 10 runs. The larger offensive explosion came after his five innings were complete, according to the supplied pitching data.
G. Graceffo’s winning contribution
- Graceffo was listed as the winning pitcher, improving to 2-0.
His supplied pitching line was:
- 1.1 innings
- 0 hits
- 0 earned runs
- 1 strikeout
- 0 walks
Graceffo’s short appearance was highly effective. He did not allow a hit or earned run and recorded a strikeout without issuing a walk.
The contrast with Skenes is interesting. Skenes produced nine strikeouts over five innings, while Graceffo produced one over 1.1 innings. Yet Graceffo was credited with the win because pitching decisions depend on the game’s circumstances and the official scoring rules, not simply on strikeout totals.
Team Pitching Numbers
The complete pitching lines show how much pressure each staff faced.
Cardinals pitching
St. Louis pitchers combined for:
- 9.0 innings
- 7 hits allowed
- 5 runs allowed
- 5 earned runs
- 6 walks
- 8 strikeouts
- 1 home run allowed
Pirates pitching
Pittsburgh pitchers combined for:
- 9.0 innings
- 13 hits allowed
- 10 runs allowed
- 8 earned runs
- 3 walks
- 12 strikeouts
- 2 home runs allowed
One of the most interesting details is that Pittsburgh’s pitching staff recorded 12 strikeouts, four more than St. Louis pitchers.
Yet the Pirates still lost by five runs.
That is a useful reminder that strikeouts are only one part of pitching performance. St. Louis generated 13 hits despite striking out 12 times. Pittsburgh’s staff also allowed two home runs, and the Cardinals took advantage of their opportunities with runners in scoring position.
Why St. Louis Scored 10 Runs
The offensive process behind the 10-run total is more informative than the score itself.
St. Louis finished with:
- 13 hits
- 10 runs
- 10 RBIs
- 2 home runs
- 3 walks
- 12 strikeouts
- 5-for-10 with runners in scoring position
- 7 runners left on base
The most important number may be the 5-for-10 performance with runners in scoring position.
A team can collect numerous hits without scoring efficiently. St. Louis avoided that problem in this matchup. Half of its opportunities with runners in scoring position resulted in hits.
The Cardinals also produced power through Walker and Wetherholt. Those home runs added another dimension to an offense that was already creating opportunities through singles and extra-base hits.
Why Pittsburgh Stopped at Five Runs
Pittsburgh’s offensive line was considerably smaller:
- 7 hits
- 5 runs
- 4 RBIs
- 1 home run
- 6 walks
- 8 strikeouts
- 1-for-6 with runners in scoring position
- 8 runners left on base
The six walks deserve attention because they show that Pittsburgh did create opportunities.
However, the Pirates went only 1-for-6 with runners in scoring position. That means they converted a much smaller share of their most important scoring opportunities.
Pittsburgh also left eight runners on base, one more than St. Louis. In a five-run loss, those stranded runners become particularly significant when examining how the game could have developed differently.
The Pirates did score in four separate innings, so the offense was not completely shut down. The issue was that the scoring was not large enough or consistent enough to keep pace with St. Louis.
The Importance of Runners in Scoring Position
RISP performance is one of the clearest ways to understand this matchup.
St. Louis went 5-for-10.
Pittsburgh went 1-for-6.
The Cardinals therefore produced a .500 batting average in the supplied RISP opportunities, while Pittsburgh’s figure was approximately .167.
These numbers should not be treated as a universal measure of offensive quality because RISP results can fluctuate substantially from game to game. But for this particular contest, the difference was directly connected to the scoreboard.
St. Louis repeatedly converted opportunities.
Pittsburgh frequently failed to do so.
That distinction helps explain how the Cardinals scored twice as many runs as the Pirates while collecting only six more hits.
Extra-Base Hits and Home Run Production
Extra-base hits also shaped the matchup.
For St. Louis, Church recorded a double, while Walker and Wetherholt each hit a home run.
For Pittsburgh, Reynolds and Lowe were listed with doubles, while Lowe also hit the team’s only home run.
The Cardinals therefore had two home runs compared with Pittsburgh’s one.
The distribution matters because home runs can instantly convert a favorable count or baserunner situation into multiple runs. Walker’s and Wetherholt’s home runs gave St. Louis additional ways to score beyond simply stringing together singles.
Fielding and Defensive Execution
Defense played a smaller but still meaningful role.
St. Louis committed one error and recorded one double play.
Pittsburgh committed two errors.
The difference was only one error, so it should not be treated as the primary explanation for the five-run margin. The larger gap came from hitting and run production.
Still, defensive mistakes can extend innings and create additional opportunities for opposing hitters. Pittsburgh’s two errors therefore added another layer of difficulty to a game in which the Cardinals were already producing 13 hits.
The Cardinals also turned a double play, helping their pitching staff escape at least one potential threat.
A Closer Look at the Scoring Pattern
The inning-by-inning scoring shows that this was not simply a game decided in the opening frame.
St. Louis scored three runs in the first inning, immediately creating separation. The Cardinals then added one in the third and another in the fifth.
Pittsburgh responded with one run in the fourth and two in the fifth. That two-run fifth inning reduced some of the early pressure.
The Pirates later scored once in the seventh and once in the ninth.
However, St. Louis produced a major offensive surge in the eighth inning, with the supplied scoring summary listing four runs and an additional run in the eighth. That late production made the final result much more difficult for Pittsburgh to overturn.
The broader pattern was therefore:
- St. Louis established an early lead.
- Pittsburgh produced a response in the middle innings.
- The Cardinals continued adding runs.
- St. Louis delivered a major late offensive push.
- Pittsburgh scored once in the ninth but could not close the gap.
This sequence shows why the final score became so decisive.
What the Player Numbers Reveal
The individual statistics suggest several useful observations.
First, St. Louis had multiple offensive contributors. Burleson and Walker each produced three RBIs, while Wetherholt added another strong performance.
Second, Pittsburgh had two prominent hitters in Reynolds and Lowe, but the rest of the lineup did not generate enough hits to match St. Louis.
Third, pitching efficiency did not translate directly into the final result. Pittsburgh’s staff recorded 12 strikeouts compared with eight for St. Louis, but the Pirates still allowed 13 hits and 10 runs.
Fourth, situational hitting separated the teams. The Cardinals were 5-for-10 with runners in scoring position, while Pittsburgh was only 1-for-6.
Finally, the Cardinals were more effective at turning their overall offensive volume into runs. Thirteen hits became 10 runs. Pittsburgh’s seven hits became five runs, but the smaller number of opportunities meant that the Pirates had less margin for missed chances.
Understanding the Skenes Performance
Paul Skenes’ line deserves careful interpretation.
He allowed seven hits and three earned runs in five innings while striking out nine and walking none.
A superficial reading could focus entirely on the nine strikeouts. Another could focus only on the seven hits and three earned runs.
Both are incomplete.
The full line shows a pitcher who generated considerable strikeout production while also allowing St. Louis to make enough contact to produce three earned runs during his five innings.
The zero walks are another important detail. Skenes did not give St. Louis free baserunners through walks in the supplied line. The Cardinals instead generated their opportunities through hits and timely hitting.
That makes their offensive production against him particularly noteworthy.
The Cardinals’ Offensive Efficiency
The Cardinals’ 13 hits were spread across an offense that generated both contact and power.
Their two home runs provided immediate scoring opportunities, while Church’s double and the team’s other hits kept innings alive.
The 5-for-10 RISP number is especially useful when assessing efficiency. St. Louis did not simply accumulate empty hits. The team frequently converted hits into runs when the game situation demanded it.
That is the type of distinction that makes player statistics more useful than a basic box-score summary.
The Pirates’ Offensive Opportunities
Pittsburgh actually had more walks than St. Louis, six compared with three.
That fact makes the final result even more informative.
The Pirates were able to reach base without necessarily getting hits, but they struggled to finish those opportunities. Their 1-for-6 RISP mark indicates that the biggest obstacle was not simply reaching base.
The Pirates also left eight runners on base.
For a team that scored five runs, those unused opportunities were important. Some stranded runners are normal in baseball, but eight left on base combined with a 1-for-6 RISP performance indicates that Pittsburgh had several innings where better execution could have produced additional scoring.
Series Context
The supplied information states that the Cardinals won the series 4-0.
It also lists the following individual game results:
- Game 1: Cardinals 4, Pirates 2, April 28
- Game 2: Cardinals 11, Pirates 7, April 29
- Game 3: Cardinals 5, Pirates 4, April 30
- Game 4: Cardinals 10, Pirates 5, April 30
There is an apparent date inconsistency in the supplied series information because it lists both Game 3 and Game 4 on April 30. Rather than inventing a correction, this article preserves the supplied data and flags the discrepancy.
The important point for the April 30 game is that the supplied series information identifies St. Louis as the overall series winner.
What This Game Means for Player Evaluation
One game should not be treated as a complete evaluation of a player.
Baseball statistics naturally fluctuate. A hitter can have a three-hit game and then go hitless in the next contest. A pitcher can record nine strikeouts in one appearance and have a very different statistical line later.
The value of this particular box score is that it identifies who influenced this game.
For St. Louis, Burleson, Walker, and Wetherholt were among the most visible offensive contributors.
For Pittsburgh, Reynolds and Lowe were the leading hitters listed in the supplied data.
On the pitching side, Skenes produced nine strikeouts despite taking the loss, while Graceffo delivered a scoreless 1.1 innings and received the win.
These statistics describe what happened in this game. They should not automatically be used to make broader claims about the entire season without additional game and season data.
Key Takeaways From the Box Score
Several facts stand above the rest.
1. St. Louis won the hit battle
The Cardinals recorded 13 hits compared with seven for Pittsburgh.
That six-hit advantage gave St. Louis substantially more opportunities to build innings.
2. Situational hitting favored St. Louis
The Cardinals went 5-for-10 with runners in scoring position.
The Pirates went 1-for-6.
That was one of the clearest statistical differences between the teams.
3. Power favored St. Louis
The Cardinals hit two home runs.
The Pirates hit one.
Walker and Wetherholt supplied St. Louis’ homers, while Lowe hit Pittsburgh’s.
4. Pittsburgh struck out more batters
The Pirates pitching staff recorded 12 strikeouts.
The Cardinals pitching staff recorded eight.
Despite that advantage, Pittsburgh allowed more hits and more runs.
5. Burleson and Walker drove in six runs combined
Both players finished with three RBIs.
Their combined production accounted for 60 percent of St. Louis’ 10 runs in terms of runs driven in.
6. Pittsburgh left more runners on base
The Pirates left eight runners on base.
St. Louis left seven.
The one-run difference is small by itself, but it becomes more meaningful alongside Pittsburgh’s 1-for-6 RISP performance.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score between the Cardinals and Pirates?
The St. Louis Cardinals defeated the Pittsburgh Pirates 10-5 on April 30, 2026, according to the supplied game data.
Who was the top Cardinals hitter?
Alec Burleson was one of the Cardinals’ leading hitters, finishing with three hits and three RBIs. Jordan Walker also recorded three RBIs and hit a home run.
Who hit home runs for the Cardinals?
Jordan Walker and Jordan Wetherholt each hit a home run for St. Louis.
Who hit the Pirates’ home run?
Brandon Lowe hit Pittsburgh’s only home run in the supplied game data. He finished with two hits, one run, one RBI, and a home run.
How did Paul Skenes pitch?
Paul Skenes pitched five innings, allowing seven hits and three earned runs while striking out nine and issuing no walks. He was listed as the losing pitcher.
Which team performed better with runners in scoring position?
St. Louis went 5-for-10 with runners in scoring position, while Pittsburgh went 1-for-6. The Cardinals therefore converted a much larger share of their listed RISP opportunities.
Conclusion
The st. louis cardinals vs pittsburgh pirates match player stats provide a detailed explanation for the Cardinals’ 10-5 victory.
St. Louis combined 13 hits with two home runs and strong situational hitting. Alec Burleson and Jordan Walker each drove in three runs, while Jordan Wetherholt added a home run and scored twice. Church contributed a double and two RBIs, giving the Cardinals several sources of offensive production.
Pittsburgh had notable individual performances from Bryan Reynolds and Brandon Lowe. Reynolds collected two hits and two RBIs, while Lowe recorded two hits and hit the Pirates’ only home run. However, Pittsburgh finished with seven hits and went just 1-for-6 with runners in scoring position.
The pitching statistics add another layer. Paul Skenes struck out nine hitters without issuing a walk, but St. Louis still collected seven hits against him in five innings. G. Graceffo, meanwhile, provided 1.1 scoreless innings and was credited with the victory.
Ultimately, the box score points to three major differences: St. Louis produced more hits, converted more RISP opportunities, and generated more power. Pittsburgh created some scoring chances through six walks and several productive individual at-bats, but the team did not convert enough of those opportunities.
For anyone studying this matchup, the most useful approach is to look beyond the 10-5 score. The combination of hitting volume, situational production, home-run output, pitching lines, and runners left on base provides a much clearer picture of how the game was actually won.
