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 688 3 52.6% 14.5% 58.3% 14.3% 72.6% 67.6% 28% 55.6% 30.7%
Díaz, Elias col 869 3 46.8% 27.5% 49.2% 34.8% 70.3% 60% 25.9% 39.6% 15.5%
Trevino, Jose nyy 590 3 53.1% 19% 43.1% 26.1% 64.6% 75.6% 38.1% 55.2% 40.7%
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 886 2 49% 19% 42.6% 24.2% 62.3% 73% 37% 49.4% 31.1%
Naylor, Bo cle 801 2 51.7% 22.2% 52.3% 15.8% 62.2% 72.7% 31.4% 57.8% 25.7%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 653 2 49.3% 14% 61.2% 17.1% 59.8% 66.4% 31.1% 49% 33.8%
Tromp, Chadwick atl 330 1 47.9% 15% 37.8% 25% 62.1% 82.4% 24% 41.8% 22.2%
Heim, Jonah tex 872 1 48.5% 19.6% 34.4% 30.4% 64.8% 71.7% 27.5% 49% 29.5%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 813 1 48.5% 10.6% 39.7% 18% 60.1% 66.9% 50.8% 55.8% 21.4%
Hedges, Austin cle 300 1 48.7% 14.3% 28.2% 16.7% 64.9% 65.1% 44.4% 53.7% 30%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 396 1 48.5% 16.7% 48.8% 19.4% 44.4% 73.8% 47.1% 50% 34.9%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 335 1 49% 11.8% 53.7% 13.3% 60.3% 66.2% 28% 56.3% 31.9%
Perez, Salvador kc 771 1 48% 10.7% 34.2% 7.1% 59.9% 68.8% 38.3% 57.1% 31.8%
Vázquez, Christian min 622 1 48.1% 15.2% 45.1% 26.7% 61% 76% 30.3% 45.9% 30.3%
Rogers, Jake det 595 1 51.8% 27% 43.1% 23.1% 61.7% 59.6% 39.2% 64.4% 37.3%
Nido, Tomás nym 428 1 46% 7.4% 42.9% 19.2% 34.8% 81.8% 30.4% 54.5% 23.5%
Bailey, Patrick sf 770 1 49.5% 24.4% 45.5% 17.3% 62% 65.3% 35.3% 56.2% 31.7%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 707 1 47.1% 14.8% 54.2% 22.9% 57% 72.6% 27.1% 50% 25.3%
Fermin, Freddy kc 556 1 48.4% 14.3% 40% 15% 54.8% 62.2% 37% 72.3% 24.6%
Caratini, Victor hou 425 0 42.1% 7.7% 44.9% 15.6% 53.2% 67.6% 26.5% 45.5% 18.9%
Zavala, Seby sea 268 0 47% 7.7% 51.4% 14.3% 55.9% 71.4% 25% 60.6% 12.9%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 732 0 45.1% 13% 57.7% 13% 57.4% 65.1% 16% 48.6% 17.9%
Pinto, René tb 441 0 44.7% 21.7% 52.4% 13.8% 55.8% 58.9% 35.3% 45.2% 29.3%
Jansen, Danny tor 426 0 46.5% 13.6% 43.8% 8.7% 58.1% 68.9% 18.5% 46.2% 27.8%
Murphy, Tom sf 302 0 45% 6.7% 40.6% 13.3% 55.6% 69.1% 35% 51.4% 13.5%
Knizner, Andrew tex 321 0 47.7% 16% 44.1% 10% 56.4% 68.3% 45.8% 56% 17.1%
Contreras, Willson stl 536 0 49.1% 8% 42.9% 17.2% 67.8% 63.7% 41.9% 55% 21.3%
Herrera, Iván stl 642 0 45% 13.2% 28.2% 16.3% 67% 59% 27.9% 56.7% 33.7%
Barnes, Austin la 315 0 45.7% 10% 30.8% 0% 54.1% 76.8% 27.8% 52.9% 32.1%
Langeliers, Shea oak 965 0 44.9% 21.3% 48.3% 25.9% 63% 62.2% 27.1% 40.5% 19.8%
Smith, Will la 906 0 44.9% 10.8% 36.6% 33.3% 54.6% 65.3% 39.7% 56% 24.1%
Sánchez, Gary mil 251 0 43.8% 10% 38.5% 16.7% 63.6% 65.6% 19% 43.9% 27.6%
Amaya, Miguel chc 747 0 46.6% 22.8% 47.7% 18.9% 53% 67.4% 25% 56% 20.8%
Stallings, Jacob col 407 0 46.2% 9.7% 42.1% 16.7% 61.5% 74.4% 23.8% 39.5% 26.7%
McGuire, Reese bos 571 0 46.8% 20% 38.7% 21.1% 57.8% 61.6% 28.3% 61.9% 22.4%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 982 0 43.4% 24% 46.4% 22.1% 62.3% 56.7% 23.5% 45.2% 21.3%
Kelly, Carson det 534 0 49.6% 13.3% 52.7% 0% 66.9% 76.1% 36.4% 47.4% 20.3%
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 494 -1 41.5% 18.6% 40.5% 21.1% 48.4% 58.8% 24.1% 57.7% 14.8%
Jeffers, Ryan min 581 -1 45.6% 26.2% 45.6% 18.8% 55.7% 59.8% 42.4% 55.6% 15.5%
Lee, Korey cws 598 -1 43.5% 10.2% 40.4% 8% 55.2% 65.8% 27% 55% 16.9%
Fortes, Nick mia 814 -1 46.6% 14% 25.6% 8.1% 61.6% 60% 35.8% 63.6% 22.9%
Stubbs, Garrett phi 262 -1 40.5% 18.2% 25% 0% 61.4% 46.3% 19% 56.3% 22.6%
Bart, Joey pit 436 -1 42.2% 6.1% 29.5% 16.7% 45.9% 69.9% 21.1% 55.4% 27.3%
McCann, James bal 509 -1 45.8% 25% 47.2% 19.4% 54.1% 57.5% 34.5% 64% 17.6%
Diaz, Yainer hou 868 -1 43.3% 13.8% 51.4% 32.2% 58.9% 59.5% 17% 39.1% 26.3%
Barnhart, Tucker ari 410 -1 40.2% 0% 32.6% 10.7% 57.3% 55.4% 17.1% 50% 18.6%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 993 -1 45.7% 15.6% 31% 13.3% 65.3% 67.7% 27.4% 50.9% 21.4%
Adams, Riley was 583 -1 42.7% 5.1% 36.2% 3.1% 57.1% 56.4% 50.8% 50.7% 23.2%
Rutschman, Adley bal 717 -1 43.7% 22.9% 44% 28.1% 61.2% 59.5% 25% 44.7% 19.3%
Wong, Connor bos 638 -1 44.7% 10.9% 44% 12.9% 56% 69.6% 30.6% 51.4% 22.5%
McCann, Kyle oak 355 -1 43.4% 8.3% 35.9% 18.2% 50% 63.2% 33.3% 50% 24.4%
Ruiz, Keibert was 551 -1 41.9% 3.8% 37.3% 14.3% 67.1% 60.6% 24% 42.7% 21.1%
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 1059 -2 44.4% 14.8% 32.8% 19% 60.4% 59.9% 34.1% 53.7% 21.2%
Maldonado, Martín cws 688 -2 40.7% 14.6% 42.3% 20.4% 46.5% 67.7% 27.3% 36.9% 14.1%
Maile, Luke cin 479 -2 37.2% 5.6% 47.2% 28.6% 45.1% 60.9% 20% 33.7% 5.4%
Campusano, Luis sd 955 -2 44.3% 16.9% 53.9% 24.6% 49.4% 66.8% 21.6% 48.5% 22.3%
Gomes, Yan chc 514 -2 38.1% 19.2% 45.8% 12.5% 49.1% 60% 17.6% 37.1% 12.5%
Bethancourt, Christian mia 534 -2 43.3% 20% 39.6% 16.7% 61.9% 67% 23.1% 39.4% 16.3%