Catcher framing is the art of a catcher receiving a pitch in a way that makes it more likely for an umpire to call it a strike. This page breaks down the catcher’s view into eight zones around the strike zone and shows the called strike percentage of all non-swings in that zone. Strike Rate shows the cumulative total of all zones. Catcher Framing Runs converts strikes to runs saved on a .125 run/strike basis, and includes park and pitcher adjustments. To qualify, a catcher must receive 6 called pitches per team game.
How to say it: “In 2018, Jeff Mathis converted 55 percent of non-swing pitches into called strikes in the Shadow Zone, the best rate of any catcher in baseball.”
Qualifier: For catchers 6 called pitches (i.e., takes, or non-swings) in the ‘shadow zone’ per team game. For pitchers and batters 1.5 called pitches in the ‘shadow zone’ per team game. (The shadow zone is essentially the edges of the strike zone, roughly one ball width inside and one ball wide outside of the zone. See what that looks like here.)
For pitchers/batters: This shows the framing that occurred behind the plate while the player in question was pitching or hitting.
View: Catcher
▾
Team
▾
2024
▾
Min Called Pitches: (Q)
▾


Rk. Catcher Team Pitches
Catcher
Framing
Runs
Strike
Rate
 Zone 11
 Zone 12
 Zone 13
 Zone 14
 Zone 16
 Zone 17
 Zone 18
 Zone 19
Díaz, Elias col 880 3 46.8% 27.2% 49.6% 34.8% 69.8% 59.6% 25.9% 39.9% 15.5%
Raleigh, Cal sea 951 3 49.1% 17.6% 44.1% 25.8% 61% 73.1% 37.5% 50.8% 29.2%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 689 3 52.5% 14.5% 58.3% 14.3% 72.4% 67.6% 29.4% 55.6% 30.3%
Trevino, Jose nyy 618 3 53.7% 19% 44% 26.1% 64.1% 76.8% 39.1% 56.1% 41.5%
Naylor, Bo cle 865 3 51.4% 22.7% 50% 18.2% 61.5% 73.6% 32.8% 56.8% 25.6%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 724 2 50.1% 14% 59.1% 17.9% 59.8% 70% 34% 50% 33.7%
Wells, Austin nyy 675 2 49.3% 11.1% 45.3% 25.5% 53.9% 69.9% 36.5% 61.3% 34.3%
Hedges, Austin cle 327 1 48.9% 14.3% 27.5% 15.4% 66.1% 64.2% 45.8% 54.1% 30.3%
Nido, Tomás nym 482 1 45% 6.3% 40% 17.9% 36% 80% 31% 51.6% 25.5%
Vázquez, Christian min 671 1 48.6% 14.9% 43% 27.7% 64.6% 75.9% 31.4% 44.8% 30.9%
Heim, Jonah tex 965 1 48.2% 18.4% 34.7% 30% 64.6% 72% 28.6% 49.3% 26%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 396 1 48.5% 16.7% 48.8% 19.4% 44.4% 73.8% 47.1% 50% 34.9%
Rogers, Jake det 634 1 52.4% 27% 44.9% 22.2% 61.4% 59.6% 40.7% 65.6% 35.9%
Bailey, Patrick sf 770 1 49.5% 24.4% 45.5% 17.3% 62% 65.3% 35.3% 56.2% 31.7%
Tromp, Chadwick atl 350 1 48% 15% 36.8% 23.5% 63.9% 79.7% 21.4% 42.9% 25%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 366 1 48.1% 10.5% 51.2% 16.7% 59% 66.3% 28% 56.1% 29.6%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 881 1 48.7% 10.5% 41.7% 21.2% 61.3% 66.7% 50% 55.6% 21.1%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 791 1 46.6% 12.5% 53.3% 23.5% 57.7% 72.4% 26.5% 49.7% 22.7%
Sánchez, Gary mil 281 0 43.1% 10% 37.5% 13.3% 64.3% 65.9% 18.2% 42.3% 26.5%
Knizner, Andrew tex 321 0 47.7% 16% 44.1% 10% 56.4% 68.3% 45.8% 56% 17.1%
Perez, Salvador kc 822 0 47.2% 11.9% 34.5% 9.7% 60.3% 67.7% 36.1% 56.5% 28.7%
Contreras, Willson stl 536 0 49.1% 8% 42.9% 17.2% 67.8% 63.7% 41.9% 55% 21.3%
Barnes, Austin la 338 0 45.9% 9.5% 31.5% 0% 55.4% 75.4% 25% 53.4% 31.3%
Herrera, Iván stl 696 0 45.3% 11.6% 28.9% 15.2% 68.1% 58.3% 27.3% 57.9% 32.6%
Amaya, Miguel chc 846 0 46.9% 25.4% 49.2% 17.9% 53.2% 66.7% 27.8% 55.4% 19%
Langeliers, Shea oak 1032 0 45.3% 19.7% 49.2% 26.2% 61.7% 63.1% 29.3% 41.6% 19%
Caratini, Victor hou 465 0 43.2% 6.7% 45.6% 15.6% 58.3% 70.5% 24.4% 45.5% 19%
McGuire, Reese bos 646 0 48.5% 18.9% 39.5% 20% 59.2% 62.7% 34% 63% 24.3%
Jansen, Danny tor 488 0 45.9% 19.2% 44.1% 8% 55.7% 69.6% 21.2% 44.7% 26.2%
Murphy, Tom sf 302 0 45% 6.7% 40.6% 13.3% 55.6% 69.1% 35% 51.4% 13.5%
Bart, Joey pit 472 0 44.3% 8.6% 28.1% 16% 48.6% 73.1% 23.8% 57.5% 28.6%
Fortes, Nick mia 882 0 46.7% 13% 24% 11.6% 60.9% 64.2% 35.1% 62.9% 24.7%
Fermin, Freddy kc 585 0 47.5% 14.6% 37.8% 17.4% 54.4% 62.5% 35.4% 72.1% 24.6%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 810 0 45.9% 13.5% 57.5% 12% 58.1% 65.3% 17.3% 50% 17.1%
Smith, Will la 981 0 45.5% 10.1% 37.8% 32.7% 54.9% 66.3% 40% 57.2% 23.3%
Pinto, René tb 441 0 44.7% 21.7% 52.4% 13.8% 55.8% 58.9% 35.3% 45.2% 29.3%
Kelly, Carson det 561 0 50.1% 13.3% 50% 0% 67.2% 76% 37.5% 49.7% 19.7%
Thaiss, Matt ana 271 0 48.3% 6.3% 48% 8.3% 68.3% 68.1% 45.5% 41.8% 21.1%
Narváez, Omar nym 564 -1 42.4% 18.4% 40.5% 25% 52.6% 59.6% 25% 53.8% 14.1%
McCann, Kyle oak 389 -1 43.4% 11.5% 34.9% 18.2% 50% 63.4% 29.6% 50% 23.8%
Jeffers, Ryan min 620 -1 46% 29.8% 45.9% 18.8% 56.6% 58.2% 44.4% 55.7% 14.8%
Adams, Riley was 624 -1 42.1% 4.9% 34.2% 2.9% 52.9% 56.9% 48.4% 51.7% 26.2%
Lee, Korey cws 660 -1 42.7% 9.8% 38.4% 6.9% 54.4% 64.1% 28.6% 54.9% 18.7%
Wong, Connor bos 707 -1 45.4% 10.5% 44.7% 11.8% 58.1% 68.9% 33.3% 51% 24.4%
McCann, James bal 555 -1 46.3% 25% 45.8% 21.6% 54.4% 60.6% 34.5% 63.5% 17.7%
Barnhart, Tucker ari 442 -1 39.8% 0% 34% 10% 55.3% 57.6% 18.4% 48.8% 16.7%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 1083 -1 43.8% 24.1% 51.6% 20.3% 64.1% 56.4% 21.6% 44.4% 19.8%
Diaz, Yainer hou 950 -1 44.1% 14.1% 52.9% 31.3% 59% 59.3% 20% 40.3% 28.4%
Stubbs, Garrett phi 286 -1 41.3% 16.7% 26.1% 0% 60.9% 51.1% 19% 56.3% 23.5%
Davis, Henry pit 580 -1 44.1% 9.7% 41.2% 25% 44.8% 73.9% 33.3% 56.6% 18.5%
Rutschman, Adley bal 742 -1 44.5% 28.8% 45.7% 30.3% 60% 59.7% 27.1% 45.7% 19.1%
Stallings, Jacob col 512 -1 43.8% 8.1% 40% 17.4% 57.9% 71.6% 34.5% 36.3% 24.2%
Ruiz, Keibert was 611 -2 40.8% 3.3% 33.8% 13.8% 67% 59.5% 22.2% 41.9% 18.2%
Maldonado, Martín cws 751 -2 40.7% 15.7% 43.5% 22.6% 49.1% 66.7% 24.3% 35% 12.9%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 1073 -2 44.8% 14.3% 29.6% 11.4% 63.2% 65.9% 29.6% 50.6% 22.7%
Bethancourt, Christian mia 541 -2 42.9% 19.4% 39.8% 16.7% 61.2% 67% 22.5% 38.9% 15.9%
Maile, Luke cin 497 -2 38.4% 5.6% 47.3% 31.6% 45.7% 63.8% 19.4% 34.1% 7.7%
Contreras, William mil 1124 -2 44.5% 13.8% 35.2% 22.2% 60.1% 59.7% 34.1% 53.2% 20.8%
Campusano, Luis sd 1006 -2 44% 17.6% 52.6% 23.1% 48.7% 67.4% 20.8% 47.2% 24.1%
Gomes, Yan chc 539 -3 38.8% 18.2% 46% 12% 49.1% 62.4% 18.9% 38% 11.8%