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
Trevino, Jose nyy 460 3 56.1% 22.6% 45.5% 33.3% 63.4% 76.8% 35.5% 57.7% 52.5%
Díaz, Elias col 708 2 47.2% 30.2% 51.5% 35.9% 72.7% 61.4% 25.5% 35.5% 13.3%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 585 2 52% 17.4% 59.1% 14.3% 72.6% 66.9% 23.3% 54.1% 31.7%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 543 2 50.8% 15.6% 60.9% 16.7% 63.1% 66.7% 28.6% 51.2% 39.1%
Wells, Austin nyy 530 2 49.8% 10.8% 46.7% 29.3% 53.6% 70.8% 38% 60.9% 35.3%
Heim, Jonah tex 697 2 48.8% 20.6% 37.1% 32.5% 64.9% 70.3% 32.5% 48.5% 29.3%
Naylor, Bo cle 640 2 52% 20.8% 50% 21.4% 62.5% 75.7% 28.6% 57.5% 24.1%
Hedges, Austin cle 265 1 48.3% 16.7% 27% 10% 66.7% 66.7% 35.7% 51.9% 29.6%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 689 1 49.9% 10.5% 41.3% 18.6% 61.7% 67.7% 56% 55.8% 23.4%
Rogers, Jake det 481 1 51.6% 25.8% 37% 17.6% 61.1% 58% 42.5% 66.7% 37%
Bailey, Patrick sf 739 1 49.1% 22.7% 43.8% 16.7% 60.6% 65.3% 37.5% 56.5% 32.1%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 575 1 47.3% 17.4% 55.6% 18.4% 59.6% 71.1% 29.7% 50% 24.2%
Raleigh, Cal sea 707 1 48.7% 14.9% 39% 26.7% 61.1% 73.2% 37.8% 50.7% 27.6%
Nido, Tomás nym 268 1 50.7% 10.5% 50% 29.4% 45.9% 78.5% 30% 62.7% 24.2%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 396 1 48.5% 16.7% 48.8% 19.4% 44.4% 73.8% 47.1% 50% 34.9%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 770 1 45.5% 24.6% 50.6% 25.9% 67.4% 56.9% 24.6% 45.3% 20.3%
Perez, Salvador kc 605 1 48.8% 11.4% 36.5% 9.1% 59.4% 69.4% 34.1% 59.4% 31.9%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 251 1 48.2% 7.7% 60% 25% 57.1% 66.7% 20% 52.9% 33.3%
Vázquez, Christian min 487 1 47.6% 12.1% 47.9% 27% 56.6% 76% 24% 46.3% 31.1%
Fermin, Freddy kc 461 0 46.4% 16.2% 36.5% 11.8% 52.5% 59.4% 35.9% 74.4% 22%
Jansen, Danny tor 342 0 45% 12.5% 38.1% 9.5% 61.3% 67.9% 15% 43.1% 29%
Thaiss, Matt ana 222 0 47.3% 8.3% 50% 0% 71.7% 67.4% 47.4% 35.7% 14.3%
Pinto, René tb 441 0 44.7% 21.7% 52.4% 13.8% 55.8% 58.9% 35.3% 45.2% 29.3%
Stallings, Jacob col 328 0 46.6% 15% 35.5% 20% 65.3% 76.1% 23.8% 40.3% 17.1%
Rutschman, Adley bal 555 0 44.5% 25.7% 46.1% 30.8% 60% 60.2% 28.1% 44.4% 21.1%
McGuire, Reese bos 491 0 46.2% 20% 38.5% 23.5% 58.1% 58.9% 28.2% 64.3% 19.3%
Langeliers, Shea oak 804 0 45.1% 23.9% 50% 23.4% 63.9% 58.3% 28.8% 41.9% 20%
Tromp, Chadwick atl 277 0 45.5% 15.8% 36.4% 8.3% 57.1% 82.5% 27.8% 40% 16.7%
McCann, Kyle oak 226 0 48.2% 7.1% 38.7% 25% 64.4% 67.3% 31.3% 52.6% 15.8%
Contreras, Willson stl 503 0 49.1% 8% 45.1% 20% 67.8% 62.6% 41.9% 54.5% 21.1%
Zavala, Seby sea 201 0 47.3% 20% 50% 15.4% 59.3% 73% 29.4% 58% 7.7%
Barnes, Austin la 248 0 47.6% 11.8% 35.9% 0% 54.7% 73.8% 33.3% 56.6% 36.8%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 593 0 45.9% 13.9% 60.5% 10% 55.6% 63.6% 14.6% 52.2% 22%
Kelly, Carson det 424 0 48.6% 12% 55.8% 0% 63.3% 76.9% 30% 46.3% 20%
Fortes, Nick mia 712 0 45.9% 16.2% 26.8% 8.3% 62.7% 58.4% 35.4% 61.4% 20.3%
Herrera, Iván stl 456 0 44.5% 15.4% 27.8% 16.1% 64.5% 61.9% 18.2% 57.6% 31.7%
Caratini, Victor hou 327 0 43.7% 10.5% 47.2% 22.7% 52.4% 66.7% 29.6% 47.9% 16.7%
Knizner, Andrew tex 223 0 47.5% 17.6% 30% 14.3% 61.9% 62.2% 42.9% 62.2% 19.2%
Jeffers, Ryan min 430 0 45.8% 25.8% 38.8% 16.7% 57.7% 58.3% 45.5% 57.4% 19%
Murphy, Tom sf 302 0 45% 6.7% 40.6% 13.3% 55.6% 69.1% 35% 51.4% 13.5%
Amaya, Miguel chc 583 0 48.2% 26% 56.5% 13.8% 52.6% 68.8% 30.6% 57% 22.8%
Lee, Korey cws 495 -1 42.8% 10.8% 38.6% 9.5% 54.8% 62.4% 26.5% 56% 17.9%
Campusano, Luis sd 803 -1 44.7% 12.7% 53.4% 29.8% 52% 67.7% 20.9% 48% 21.8%
Maile, Luke cin 379 -1 37.7% 7.4% 47.6% 31% 43.8% 63.1% 14.8% 32.4% 8.3%
Davis, Henry pit 580 -1 44.1% 9.7% 41.2% 25% 44.8% 73.9% 33.3% 56.6% 18.5%
McCann, James bal 440 -1 45.2% 20% 49.3% 20.8% 56.1% 56% 32% 61.1% 17.5%
Diaz, Yainer hou 707 -1 42.7% 13.6% 48.7% 28.9% 60% 58.9% 20% 40.3% 24.2%
Adams, Riley was 562 -1 42.5% 5.7% 33.3% 3.3% 55.7% 56.1% 51.7% 51.2% 23.2%
Gomes, Yan chc 407 -1 40.3% 17.5% 47.8% 15.8% 53.2% 65.1% 18.6% 39.7% 13.8%
Bethancourt, Christian mia 372 -1 42.2% 18.2% 38.4% 17.6% 63.1% 66.7% 19.2% 35.3% 18.8%
Wong, Connor bos 527 -1 43.8% 11.6% 45.1% 11.1% 49.4% 68.2% 30% 52.1% 26.7%
Smith, Will la 792 -1 43.3% 10.4% 29.6% 29.4% 55.1% 63% 33.3% 54.5% 27.2%
Contreras, William mil 845 -1 44.9% 13.6% 29.1% 14.3% 60.5% 61.6% 36.2% 53.2% 21.6%
Bart, Joey pit 344 -1 43.3% 7.7% 29.8% 15.8% 46.9% 70.3% 25% 54.2% 34.4%
Narváez, Omar nym 442 -1 41.4% 15.8% 42.9% 21.4% 46.4% 58.6% 23.1% 57.1% 13.2%
Ruiz, Keibert was 399 -1 40.9% 5.3% 48.8% 11.1% 66.7% 54.7% 23.8% 43% 18.2%
Barnhart, Tucker ari 305 -1 39.7% 0% 31% 10% 56.7% 56.7% 16.7% 45.9% 17.2%
Maldonado, Martín cws 588 -2 40% 17.9% 43.5% 17.8% 44% 65.7% 30.8% 37.9% 12.9%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 842 -2 44.9% 16.7% 30.6% 4.8% 66% 69.8% 26.2% 48.2% 16.5%