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 608 3 51.8% 16.3% 59.7% 14.3% 73.3% 67.8% 22.2% 53.8% 30.3%
Trevino, Jose nyy 487 3 55.2% 21.2% 45.6% 31.6% 64.4% 77.5% 33.3% 56.4% 48.8%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 556 2 50.2% 14.7% 59.8% 16.1% 62.5% 66.9% 30.2% 50% 37.9%
Díaz, Elias col 708 2 47.2% 30.6% 51.5% 35.9% 72.2% 61.4% 25.5% 35.5% 13.3%
Wells, Austin nyy 530 2 49.8% 10.8% 46.7% 29.3% 53.6% 70.8% 38% 60.9% 35.3%
Naylor, Bo cle 659 2 52.4% 21.8% 49.3% 21.4% 62.9% 75.4% 27.9% 58.5% 25.4%
Heim, Jonah tex 724 2 49% 19.4% 36.1% 31% 65.8% 71.1% 33.3% 48.8% 30.2%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 689 1 49.9% 10.5% 41.3% 18.6% 61.7% 67.9% 56% 55.8% 22.2%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 274 1 47.4% 7.7% 56.8% 20% 55.6% 66.7% 20% 51.9% 31.7%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 574 1 47.4% 17.4% 56.3% 18.4% 59.6% 71.1% 29.7% 50% 24.2%
Hedges, Austin cle 265 1 48.3% 16.7% 27% 10% 66.7% 66.7% 35.7% 51.9% 29.6%
Fermin, Freddy kc 484 1 47.1% 15.8% 36.9% 10.5% 53.3% 59.7% 39% 75% 22.6%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 396 1 48.5% 16.7% 48.8% 19.4% 44.4% 73.8% 47.1% 50% 34.9%
Raleigh, Cal sea 725 1 48.6% 14.9% 39.7% 26.1% 60.4% 72.8% 35.6% 50% 30%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 770 1 45.5% 24.6% 50.6% 25.9% 67.4% 56.9% 24.6% 45.3% 20.3%
Nido, Tomás nym 280 1 50.7% 10.5% 48.6% 27.8% 45.9% 78.9% 30% 62.3% 22.9%
Rogers, Jake det 513 1 51.5% 25% 39.7% 15.8% 61.6% 58.3% 40% 66.7% 36%
Bailey, Patrick sf 739 1 49.1% 22.7% 43.8% 16.7% 60.6% 65.3% 37.5% 56.5% 32.1%
Perez, Salvador kc 606 1 48.8% 11.4% 36.5% 9.1% 59% 69.4% 34.9% 59.7% 31.9%
Vázquez, Christian min 487 1 47.6% 12.1% 47.9% 27% 56.6% 76% 24% 46.3% 31.1%
McGuire, Reese bos 522 0 46.7% 20% 38.2% 22.2% 59.2% 59% 27.9% 64.2% 20.3%
Barnes, Austin la 270 0 46.3% 11.1% 34% 0% 53.6% 73.9% 33.3% 53.4% 36.8%
Tromp, Chadwick atl 303 0 46.5% 15% 37.8% 20% 58.5% 82% 28.6% 41.7% 16.7%
Contreras, Willson stl 503 0 49.1% 8% 45.1% 20% 67.8% 62.6% 41.9% 54.5% 21.1%
Caratini, Victor hou 329 0 43.2% 10% 45.7% 22.7% 53.2% 66.7% 29.6% 46.1% 16.7%
Kelly, Carson det 424 0 48.6% 12% 55.8% 0% 63.3% 76.9% 30% 46.3% 20%
Thaiss, Matt ana 239 0 47.3% 7.1% 48% 0% 70.6% 67.4% 47.4% 38.7% 13.3%
Murphy, Tom sf 302 0 45% 6.7% 40.6% 13.3% 55.6% 69.1% 35% 51.4% 13.5%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 597 0 46.1% 13.9% 60.9% 10% 55.5% 63.6% 14.6% 52.6% 22%
McCann, Kyle oak 259 0 48.3% 6.7% 40.6% 22.2% 61.7% 63.9% 33.3% 57.4% 26.7%
Pinto, René tb 441 0 44.7% 21.7% 52.4% 13.8% 55.8% 58.9% 35.3% 45.2% 29.3%
Rutschman, Adley bal 587 0 44.5% 22% 45.1% 27.6% 61.5% 62.4% 28.1% 44.2% 20.5%
Langeliers, Shea oak 803 0 45.1% 23.9% 49.5% 23.4% 63.9% 58.3% 28.8% 41.9% 20%
Jansen, Danny tor 347 0 45.2% 11.8% 38.1% 9.5% 61.9% 67.9% 15% 44.6% 28.1%
Amaya, Miguel chc 615 0 47.6% 24.5% 55.2% 16.7% 54% 68.4% 29.7% 54.8% 22.6%
Stallings, Jacob col 354 0 47.2% 12.5% 40% 20% 66.2% 74.6% 23.8% 40.3% 23.1%
Knizner, Andrew tex 223 0 47.5% 17.6% 30% 14.3% 61.9% 62.2% 42.9% 62.2% 19.2%
Barnhart, Tucker ari 331 -1 40.8% 0% 33.3% 9.5% 57.7% 59.1% 16.7% 47.1% 15.6%
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 793 -1 43.5% 10.4% 30.6% 30.3% 55.1% 62.8% 33.3% 54.7% 26.4%
Herrera, Iván stl 484 -1 44.2% 16.7% 26.3% 17.6% 65% 61.1% 17.1% 58.9% 30.2%
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 728 -1 42.9% 13.6% 48.7% 31.3% 60.3% 59.2% 19.5% 39.5% 25.4%
Davis, Henry pit 580 -1 44.1% 9.7% 41.2% 25% 44.8% 73.9% 33.3% 56.6% 18.5%
Adams, Riley was 562 -1 42.5% 5.7% 33.3% 3.3% 55.7% 56.1% 51.7% 51.2% 23.2%
Ruiz, Keibert was 438 -1 41.1% 4.8% 42.9% 14.3% 68.4% 55.3% 23.3% 42.5% 22.4%
Campusano, Luis sd 803 -1 44.7% 12.7% 53.4% 29.8% 52% 67.7% 20.9% 48% 21.8%
Lee, Korey cws 495 -1 42.8% 10.8% 38.6% 9.5% 54.2% 62.4% 28.6% 56% 17.9%
Fortes, Nick mia 714 -1 45.8% 15.8% 26.5% 8.6% 62.9% 58.4% 36.1% 61% 20%
McCann, James bal 442 -1 45.2% 20.8% 48.5% 17.4% 54.5% 56.6% 33.3% 61.9% 17.5%
Jeffers, Ryan min 476 -1 44.7% 26.5% 39.2% 15.4% 55.7% 57.7% 44.4% 57.1% 16.7%
Bethancourt, Christian mia 413 -1 42.6% 19.2% 39% 17.4% 61.1% 67.1% 20.7% 37.8% 18.2%
Gomes, Yan chc 407 -1 40.3% 17.5% 47.8% 15.8% 53.2% 65.1% 18.6% 39.7% 13.8%
Narváez, Omar nym 468 -2 41% 20% 41.1% 18.8% 47.7% 57.6% 21.4% 57.1% 12.5%
Contreras, William mil 880 -2 44.4% 17% 28.6% 13.5% 61.2% 61.1% 35.7% 52.6% 20%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 872 -2 45.2% 17.2% 31.9% 13% 65.8% 69.3% 26.2% 49% 16.8%
Maldonado, Martín cws 615 -2 39.7% 17.5% 42.7% 17.4% 43.8% 65.3% 26.7% 38.4% 12.7%
Maile, Luke cin 418 -2 37.3% 6.9% 45.6% 29.4% 43.9% 63.4% 15.6% 33.8% 7.1%