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 555 3 53.5% 21.1% 42.4% 27.3% 64.6% 76.6% 36.8% 54.3% 43.6%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 638 3 51.9% 16% 57.1% 14.3% 74% 66.7% 23.4% 54.8% 30%
Díaz, Elias col 805 3 47.1% 30.1% 50.4% 34.9% 71.9% 60.6% 26.3% 37.6% 15.9%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 619 2 48.9% 12.2% 60.2% 14.7% 59.4% 67.6% 30.2% 49% 33.3%
Heim, Jonah tex 829 2 49% 22.5% 34.9% 28.9% 65.4% 71.8% 28.6% 49.7% 30%
Wells, Austin nyy 599 2 49.4% 10% 48.5% 27.7% 52.6% 70.4% 36.5% 59.2% 35.6%
Raleigh, Cal sea 865 2 48.9% 18.6% 43.4% 24.1% 61.5% 73.2% 37% 48.9% 30.7%
Naylor, Bo cle 772 2 51.9% 22.6% 51.7% 17.1% 62.3% 73.9% 32% 57.8% 24.6%
Vázquez, Christian min 587 1 47.9% 12.2% 46.2% 25.6% 61.2% 75.2% 30.3% 45.6% 30%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 775 1 49% 10.6% 40.9% 19.6% 61% 65.8% 51.7% 56.1% 22.7%
Fermin, Freddy kc 529 1 47.6% 15% 40.6% 10.5% 53% 61.6% 37.8% 71.8% 24.1%
Bailey, Patrick sf 770 1 49.5% 24.4% 45.5% 17.3% 62% 65.3% 35.3% 56.2% 31.7%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 396 1 48.5% 16.7% 48.8% 19.4% 44.4% 73.8% 47.1% 50% 34.9%
Nido, Tomás nym 388 1 46.9% 7.4% 41.7% 21.7% 39% 80.4% 35% 55.4% 22.2%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 335 1 49% 11.8% 53.7% 13.3% 60.3% 66.2% 28% 56.3% 31.9%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 677 1 47.7% 15.7% 55.4% 22.9% 58.5% 73.3% 25% 50.8% 24.7%
Perez, Salvador kc 729 1 48.4% 11.1% 34.8% 7.1% 58.5% 70% 39.3% 58.3% 33.8%
Rogers, Jake det 595 1 51.8% 27% 43.1% 20% 61.7% 60% 39.2% 64.4% 37.3%
Hedges, Austin cle 300 1 48.7% 14.3% 28.2% 16.7% 64.9% 65.1% 44.4% 53.7% 30%
Knizner, Andrew tex 306 0 47.4% 17.4% 40.6% 11.1% 56.4% 66.7% 43.5% 56.3% 18.2%
Jansen, Danny tor 426 0 46.5% 13.6% 43.8% 8.7% 58.1% 68.9% 18.5% 46.2% 27.8%
Contreras, Willson stl 536 0 49.1% 8% 42.9% 17.2% 67.8% 63.7% 41.9% 55% 21.3%
McGuire, Reese bos 571 0 46.8% 20% 38.7% 21.1% 57.8% 61.6% 28.3% 61.9% 22.4%
Pinto, René tb 441 0 44.7% 21.7% 52.4% 13.8% 55.8% 58.9% 35.3% 45.2% 29.3%
Tromp, Chadwick atl 303 0 46.5% 15% 37.8% 20% 58.5% 82% 28.6% 41.7% 16.7%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 917 0 43.9% 24.3% 46.6% 23.1% 62.7% 57.4% 23% 45.6% 23.3%
Thaiss, Matt ana 271 0 48.3% 6.3% 48% 8.3% 68.3% 68.1% 45.5% 41.8% 21.1%
Langeliers, Shea oak 917 0 45.4% 20% 49.1% 27.8% 63.3% 62.4% 29.7% 40.1% 18.9%
Murphy, Tom sf 302 0 45% 6.7% 40.6% 13.3% 55.6% 69.1% 35% 51.4% 13.5%
Caratini, Victor hou 391 0 41.9% 9.1% 45.2% 16.7% 54.3% 67.2% 26.5% 44% 17.1%
Barnes, Austin la 287 0 46.3% 11.1% 33.3% 0% 53.3% 75.5% 29.4% 54% 33.3%
Amaya, Miguel chc 674 0 47.9% 24.1% 53.2% 20.6% 55.2% 67.3% 27.5% 56% 22.4%
Stallings, Jacob col 407 0 46.2% 9.7% 42.1% 16.7% 61.5% 74.4% 23.8% 39.5% 26.7%
Bart, Joey pit 395 0 43.3% 7.1% 28.3% 13.6% 47.3% 70.7% 25% 55.9% 30%
Kelly, Carson det 481 0 49.3% 13.8% 57.1% 0% 67.3% 75.4% 33.3% 44.7% 18.9%
Jeffers, Ryan min 582 -1 45.5% 26.2% 45.6% 18.8% 55.7% 59.8% 42.4% 55.2% 15.5%
Rutschman, Adley bal 679 -1 43.6% 23.4% 44.4% 28.1% 60% 58.6% 24.4% 46% 19.5%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 711 -1 44.6% 13.3% 57.4% 13% 57% 64.3% 14.3% 48.9% 16.9%
Ruiz, Keibert was 551 -1 41.9% 3.8% 37.3% 14.3% 67.1% 60.6% 24% 42.7% 21.1%
McCann, James bal 480 -1 45.4% 25.9% 49.3% 15.4% 53.4% 55.7% 34.5% 63.6% 17.1%
Lee, Korey cws 575 -1 43% 11.4% 38.4% 8.7% 54.7% 63% 27% 55.9% 17.2%
Davis, Henry pit 580 -1 44.1% 9.7% 41.2% 25% 44.8% 73.9% 33.3% 56.6% 18.5%
Wong, Connor bos 578 -1 44.5% 12% 44.9% 11.1% 52.5% 67.4% 33.3% 53.8% 23.4%
Barnhart, Tucker ari 382 -1 39.5% 0% 33.3% 12% 56.4% 55.3% 15.2% 47.4% 19%
Adams, Riley was 562 -1 42.5% 5.7% 33.3% 3.3% 55.7% 56.1% 51.7% 51.2% 23.2%
Fortes, Nick mia 812 -1 46.6% 14.3% 25.6% 8.1% 61.6% 59.6% 35.1% 63.6% 23.9%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 993 -1 45.7% 15.6% 31% 13.3% 65.3% 67.7% 27.4% 50.9% 21.4%
Herrera, Iván stl 577 -1 44% 13.9% 24.2% 15.8% 67.7% 59.3% 29.3% 54.3% 30.3%
Smith, Will la 867 -1 44.4% 11% 35.3% 34.1% 54.7% 64.2% 37.5% 55.2% 24.2%
McCann, Kyle oak 354 -1 43.5% 7.7% 35.9% 18.2% 52.2% 63.2% 30.4% 50.7% 24.4%
Gomes, Yan chc 508 -2 38.4% 20% 46.6% 12.5% 49.6% 60% 17.6% 36.5% 12.9%
Maile, Luke cin 445 -2 36.6% 6.3% 45.7% 29.4% 43.5% 61.3% 15.2% 32.5% 6.5%
Campusano, Luis sd 912 -2 44.7% 16.4% 54.5% 25.9% 48.7% 67.2% 20.4% 49.7% 23%
Diaz, Yainer hou 833 -2 42.3% 13.8% 50% 32.7% 58.7% 58.2% 17% 38.2% 23.7%
Maldonado, Martín cws 688 -2 40.7% 14.6% 42.3% 20.4% 46.5% 67.7% 27.3% 36.9% 14.1%
Bethancourt, Christian mia 471 -2 42% 17.9% 36.7% 16% 61% 68.1% 20% 36.4% 16.2%
Narváez, Omar nym 471 -2 41% 19.5% 41.1% 22.2% 47.7% 57.6% 21.4% 57.1% 12.5%
Contreras, William mil 1016 -2 44.1% 14.3% 33.9% 17.1% 58.9% 59.9% 32.9% 53.9% 21.2%