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
Raleigh, Cal sea 927 3 49% 16.4% 43.5% 25% 62.3% 72.8% 37% 50.3% 29.5%
Naylor, Bo cle 842 3 51.2% 21.5% 50.5% 19% 60.4% 73.7% 29.1% 57.2% 26%
Díaz, Elias col 880 3 46.8% 27.2% 49.6% 34.8% 69.8% 59.6% 25.9% 39.9% 15.5%
Trevino, Jose nyy 609 3 53.5% 19% 43.2% 26.1% 64.4% 76% 39.1% 56.1% 42.9%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 689 3 52.5% 14.5% 58.3% 14.3% 72.4% 67.6% 29.4% 55.6% 30.3%
Wells, Austin nyy 649 2 49.3% 11.1% 47.2% 26% 53.5% 70.3% 36.2% 61.1% 33.8%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 701 2 49.1% 14.9% 58.9% 18.4% 58.8% 68% 32.7% 49.1% 33%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 335 1 49% 11.8% 53.7% 13.3% 60.3% 66.2% 28% 56.3% 31.9%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 770 1 46.9% 12.7% 54.4% 23.5% 58.7% 73% 26.5% 49.6% 21.4%
Rogers, Jake det 616 1 52.1% 27% 43.9% 23.1% 61.3% 58.9% 41.5% 65.4% 36.5%
Vázquez, Christian min 671 1 48.6% 14.9% 43% 27.7% 64.6% 76.1% 31.4% 44.8% 30%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 844 1 48.7% 11.1% 40.6% 18% 60.1% 66.7% 50.8% 56.7% 22.1%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 396 1 48.5% 16.7% 48.8% 19.4% 44.4% 73.8% 47.1% 50% 34.9%
Tromp, Chadwick atl 330 1 47.9% 15% 37.8% 25% 62.1% 82.4% 24% 41.8% 22.2%
Heim, Jonah tex 928 1 48.4% 18.4% 34.8% 30.6% 65.2% 73.2% 27.8% 49.3% 26.2%
Bailey, Patrick sf 770 1 49.5% 24.4% 45.5% 17.3% 62% 65.3% 35.3% 56.2% 31.7%
Nido, Tomás nym 453 1 45.3% 7.1% 40% 19.2% 35.2% 82% 31% 52.3% 24.5%
Hedges, Austin cle 327 1 48.9% 14.3% 27.5% 15.4% 66.1% 64.2% 45.8% 54.1% 30.3%
Langeliers, Shea oak 1009 0 45.1% 20.3% 49.6% 26.2% 62.4% 62.2% 28.4% 41.2% 19.4%
Pinto, René tb 441 0 44.7% 21.7% 52.4% 13.8% 55.8% 58.9% 35.3% 45.2% 29.3%
Fortes, Nick mia 860 0 46.7% 13.6% 24.5% 10.5% 60.7% 63.8% 35.1% 62.6% 25%
Barnes, Austin la 338 0 45.9% 9.5% 31.5% 0% 55.4% 75.4% 25% 53.4% 31.3%
McGuire, Reese bos 643 0 48.5% 18.4% 39.5% 19% 59.7% 63.4% 34% 63.2% 24.7%
Amaya, Miguel chc 801 0 46.3% 24.6% 46.6% 18.4% 52.1% 66.9% 23.9% 55.6% 20.3%
Bart, Joey pit 472 0 44.3% 8.6% 28.1% 16% 48.6% 73.1% 23.8% 57.5% 28.6%
Knizner, Andrew tex 321 0 47.7% 16% 44.1% 10% 56.4% 68.3% 45.8% 56% 17.1%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 1052 0 44.1% 24.1% 49.2% 20.3% 64.6% 57.7% 22.6% 44.7% 20.5%
Kelly, Carson det 561 0 50.1% 13.3% 50% 0% 67.2% 76% 37.5% 49.7% 19.7%
Fermin, Freddy kc 583 0 47.5% 14.9% 37.8% 17.4% 54.4% 62% 35.4% 72.1% 24.6%
Smith, Will la 966 0 45.3% 10.4% 37.4% 33.3% 55.6% 65.6% 39.1% 56.8% 23.3%
Perez, Salvador kc 804 0 47.6% 12.3% 35.8% 9.7% 60.5% 68.2% 36.7% 56.6% 29.3%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 786 0 45.5% 12% 56.4% 12.2% 58.9% 65.2% 17.6% 49.3% 17.1%
Contreras, Willson stl 536 0 49.1% 8% 42.9% 17.2% 67.8% 63.7% 41.9% 55% 21.3%
Thaiss, Matt ana 271 0 48.3% 6.3% 48% 8.3% 68.3% 68.1% 45.5% 41.8% 21.1%
Herrera, Iván stl 664 0 44.9% 12.5% 28% 15.9% 67.9% 59% 27.3% 56.3% 33%
Murphy, Tom sf 302 0 45% 6.7% 40.6% 13.3% 55.6% 69.1% 35% 51.4% 13.5%
Zavala, Seby sea 268 0 47% 7.7% 51.4% 14.3% 55.9% 71.4% 25% 60.6% 12.9%
Jansen, Danny tor 457 0 46.4% 16.7% 42.6% 8.7% 56.6% 69.8% 20% 45.9% 28.2%
Stallings, Jacob col 469 0 45% 9.1% 42.9% 15% 57.4% 74% 32.1% 36.8% 25.9%
Caratini, Victor hou 426 0 42% 7.1% 44.9% 15.6% 54.7% 67.6% 25.7% 45.5% 18.9%
Sánchez, Gary mil 281 0 43.1% 10% 37.5% 13.3% 64.3% 65.9% 18.2% 42.3% 26.5%
Adams, Riley was 624 -1 42.1% 4.9% 34.2% 2.9% 52.9% 56.9% 48.4% 51.7% 26.2%
Wong, Connor bos 670 -1 46% 10.9% 44.9% 12.1% 58.3% 69.9% 35.1% 52% 25.3%
Stubbs, Garrett phi 286 -1 41.3% 16.7% 26.1% 0% 60.9% 51.1% 19% 56.3% 23.5%
Barnhart, Tucker ari 442 -1 39.8% 0% 34% 10% 55.3% 57.6% 18.4% 48.8% 16.7%
Lee, Korey cws 660 -1 42.7% 9.8% 38.4% 6.9% 54.4% 64.1% 28.6% 54.9% 18.7%
Jeffers, Ryan min 602 -1 46% 25.6% 46.3% 18.8% 56.9% 59.1% 44.4% 55.8% 15.3%
McCann, Kyle oak 389 -1 43.4% 8% 36.4% 18.2% 50.6% 63.4% 29.6% 49.4% 23.8%
Narváez, Omar nym 564 -1 42.4% 18.4% 40.5% 25% 52.6% 59.6% 25% 53.8% 14.1%
Diaz, Yainer hou 948 -1 44.1% 14.1% 52.6% 31.3% 59% 59.3% 20% 40.5% 28.4%
Rutschman, Adley bal 717 -1 43.7% 22.9% 44% 28.1% 60.9% 59.5% 26.7% 45% 19.1%
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 555 -1 46.3% 25% 45.8% 21.6% 54.4% 60.6% 34.5% 63.5% 17.7%
Campusano, Luis sd 1006 -2 44% 17.6% 52.6% 23.1% 48.7% 67.4% 20.8% 47.2% 24.1%
Ruiz, Keibert was 580 -2 41.4% 3.7% 35.5% 14.3% 67.1% 61.1% 22.2% 42% 19.7%
Bethancourt, Christian mia 541 -2 42.9% 19.4% 39.8% 16.7% 61.2% 67% 22.5% 38.9% 15.9%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 1050 -2 45.4% 14.5% 30.5% 11.8% 64.3% 66.7% 30% 51.1% 23.1%
Contreras, William mil 1095 -2 44.6% 14.1% 34.6% 22.7% 60.6% 59.3% 34.1% 54% 20.8%
Maile, Luke cin 497 -2 38.4% 5.6% 47.3% 31.6% 45.7% 63.8% 19.4% 34.1% 7.7%
Maldonado, Martín cws 724 -2 40.9% 14% 43.4% 23.1% 48.1% 66.7% 25.7% 36.3% 13.6%
Gomes, Yan chc 539 -3 38.8% 18.2% 46% 12% 49.1% 62.4% 18.9% 38% 11.8%