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
Kirk, Alejandro tor 585 2 52% 17.4% 59.1% 14.3% 72.6% 66.9% 23.3% 54.1% 31.7%
Díaz, Elias col 672 2 47.3% 31.1% 51.6% 32.4% 73.8% 59.7% 27.3% 35% 14.3%
Trevino, Jose nyy 427 2 55% 20% 45.1% 31.3% 64% 75.8% 32.1% 56.7% 48.6%
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 661 2 49.5% 23.3% 37.9% 32.5% 66.7% 71% 32.4% 47.4% 30.7%
Naylor, Bo cle 640 2 52% 20.8% 50% 21.4% 62.5% 75.7% 28.6% 57.5% 24.1%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 522 1 50.6% 15.6% 60% 16.7% 64.1% 67.6% 29.3% 50.6% 38.7%
Bailey, Patrick sf 739 1 49.1% 22.7% 43.8% 16.7% 60.6% 65.3% 37.5% 56.5% 32.1%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 656 1 50.5% 12.1% 40.3% 19.5% 62.3% 66.9% 57.1% 55.7% 24.6%
Perez, Salvador kc 567 1 49.9% 11.9% 39.6% 9.5% 60.7% 72.5% 35.9% 59.1% 32.8%
Raleigh, Cal sea 688 1 49% 13.3% 39.2% 27.9% 61.1% 74.8% 37.2% 50.7% 27.6%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 763 1 45.7% 24.6% 50% 26.4% 67.9% 57.4% 25.4% 45.8% 20%
Hedges, Austin cle 233 1 48.5% 22.2% 27.8% 11.1% 68.2% 63.5% 38.5% 52.1% 31.8%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 251 1 48.2% 7.7% 60% 25% 57.1% 66.7% 20% 52.9% 33.3%
Rogers, Jake det 481 1 51.6% 25.8% 37% 17.6% 61.1% 58% 42.5% 66.7% 37%
Vázquez, Christian min 458 1 48% 13.3% 50% 29.4% 58% 75.5% 26.1% 42.5% 30.5%
Contreras, Willson stl 470 1 50.6% 8% 47.9% 17.4% 67.1% 66.4% 43.3% 56.9% 22.6%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 396 1 48.5% 16.7% 48.8% 19.4% 44.4% 73.8% 47.1% 50% 34.9%
Wong, Connor bos 506 0 44.5% 9.5% 45.1% 7.7% 51.2% 70.7% 32.1% 53.4% 27.1%
Fermin, Freddy kc 461 0 46.4% 16.2% 36.5% 11.8% 52% 59.4% 37.5% 74.4% 22%
McGuire, Reese bos 491 0 46.2% 20% 38.5% 23.5% 58.1% 58.9% 28.2% 64.3% 19.3%
Pinto, René tb 441 0 44.7% 21.7% 52.4% 13.8% 55.8% 58.9% 35.3% 45.2% 29.3%
Langeliers, Shea oak 777 0 45.3% 26.7% 50% 25% 62.9% 60.5% 28.1% 41.8% 19%
Nido, Tomás nym 242 0 49.2% 10.5% 48.3% 30.8% 41.2% 77.2% 30% 62% 23.3%
Rutschman, Adley bal 555 0 44.5% 25.7% 46.1% 30.8% 60% 59.6% 28.1% 44.4% 21.4%
Thaiss, Matt ana 207 0 48.8% 8.3% 47.6% 0% 73.3% 68.3% 47.1% 38.8% 15.4%
Murphy, Tom sf 290 0 45.5% 7.1% 43.3% 13.3% 54.5% 70.8% 36.8% 51.5% 13.5%
Kelly, Carson det 408 0 48% 8.3% 56.4% 0% 62.9% 75.8% 30.8% 45.3% 19.1%
Zavala, Seby sea 201 0 47.3% 20% 50% 15.4% 59.3% 73% 29.4% 58% 7.7%
Amaya, Miguel chc 549 0 48.3% 25% 56.5% 14.3% 51.9% 67.4% 28.6% 60.4% 23.1%
Caratini, Victor hou 295 0 44.4% 5.6% 45.5% 22.7% 53.4% 65.3% 33.3% 54.8% 17.2%
Fortes, Nick mia 668 0 46.1% 16.7% 28.6% 8.8% 62.4% 60% 34.2% 60.9% 19.2%
Knizner, Andrew tex 221 0 48% 17.6% 30% 14.3% 63.4% 63.6% 42.9% 62.2% 19.2%
Barnes, Austin la 248 0 47.6% 11.8% 35.9% 0% 54.7% 73.8% 33.3% 56.6% 36.8%
McCann, Kyle oak 226 0 48.2% 7.1% 38.7% 25% 64.4% 67.3% 31.3% 52.6% 15.8%
Tromp, Chadwick atl 277 0 45.5% 15.8% 36.4% 8.3% 57.1% 82.5% 27.8% 40% 16.7%
Stallings, Jacob col 328 0 46.6% 15% 35.5% 20% 65.3% 76.1% 23.8% 40.3% 17.1%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 549 0 46.8% 17.4% 57.7% 19.4% 59% 71.7% 24.2% 48% 24.2%
Jansen, Danny tor 294 0 44.9% 14.3% 40% 10% 57.7% 69.6% 18.8% 39% 33.3%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 558 0 46.4% 14.7% 59.5% 11.4% 54.1% 64.8% 14.6% 53.8% 22.7%
Lee, Korey cws 441 -1 43.3% 8.8% 36.9% 9.5% 58.2% 61.4% 26.7% 57.1% 20%
Smith, Will la 764 -1 43.8% 10.8% 30.4% 31.3% 55.1% 62.3% 34% 55.5% 27.1%
Davis, Henry pit 580 -1 44.1% 9.7% 41.2% 25% 44.8% 73.9% 33.3% 56.6% 18.5%
Contreras, William mil 818 -1 44.6% 13.6% 29.8% 14.7% 60.8% 60.8% 35.8% 53.3% 20.4%
Herrera, Iván stl 456 -1 44.5% 15.4% 27.8% 16.1% 64.5% 61.9% 18.2% 57.6% 31.7%
McCann, James bal 414 -1 45.7% 20.8% 48.4% 19% 54.7% 56.3% 33.3% 62.2% 17.9%
Gomes, Yan chc 407 -1 40.3% 17.5% 47.8% 15.8% 53.2% 65.1% 18.6% 39.7% 13.8%
Campusano, Luis sd 763 -1 44.6% 11.5% 53.2% 31.1% 52.5% 67.1% 20.9% 48.3% 21.4%
Ruiz, Keibert was 351 -1 41.3% 5.9% 51.2% 12.5% 62.2% 55.7% 25.6% 43.6% 21.1%
Adams, Riley was 562 -1 42.5% 5.7% 33.3% 3.3% 55.7% 56.1% 51.7% 51.2% 23.2%
Maile, Luke cin 379 -1 37.7% 7.4% 47.6% 31% 43.8% 63.1% 14.8% 32.4% 8.3%
Barnhart, Tucker ari 305 -1 39.7% 0% 31% 10% 56.7% 56.7% 16.7% 45.9% 17.2%
Jeffers, Ryan min 430 -1 45.8% 25.8% 38.8% 16.7% 57.7% 58.3% 45.5% 57.4% 19%
Bart, Joey pit 344 -1 43.3% 7.7% 29.8% 15.8% 46.9% 70.3% 25% 54.2% 34.4%
Diaz, Yainer hou 708 -1 43.1% 13.6% 48.7% 30.4% 60% 58.5% 20% 41.8% 24.6%
Narváez, Omar nym 442 -1 41.4% 15.8% 42.9% 21.4% 46.4% 58.6% 23.1% 57.1% 13.2%
Bethancourt, Christian mia 373 -1 42.4% 18.2% 39.2% 17.6% 63.1% 66.7% 19.2% 35.3% 18.8%
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 824 -2 44.4% 17% 30.9% 4.8% 65.1% 69.9% 25.8% 47.1% 15.7%