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 517 3 53.8% 20% 44.1% 28.6% 65.6% 76% 35.1% 53.3% 45.8%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 636 3 51.9% 16% 58% 14.3% 73.8% 66.7% 25% 54.4% 30%
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 716 2 52.8% 23.7% 52% 18.8% 63.8% 74.3% 29.2% 60.3% 25.4%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 603 2 48.8% 11.9% 59.4% 15.2% 60% 66.7% 30.2% 48.9% 35.6%
Heim, Jonah tex 749 2 48.7% 21.6% 35.6% 31% 64.8% 71.1% 29.8% 48.9% 29.9%
Díaz, Elias col 708 2 47.2% 30.6% 51.5% 35.9% 72.2% 61.4% 25.5% 35.5% 13.3%
Raleigh, Cal sea 761 2 48.9% 14.3% 40.4% 25% 61.2% 72.7% 36.2% 51% 30.5%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 396 1 48.5% 16.7% 48.8% 19.4% 44.4% 73.8% 47.1% 50% 34.9%
Bailey, Patrick sf 739 1 49.1% 22.7% 43.8% 16.7% 60.6% 65.3% 37.5% 56.5% 32.1%
Fermin, Freddy kc 488 1 47.1% 15.4% 36.9% 10.5% 53.3% 60.3% 38.1% 75.5% 21.2%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 296 1 49% 14.3% 56.8% 18.2% 58.8% 67.2% 19% 55% 31.8%
Rogers, Jake det 513 1 51.5% 25% 39.7% 15.8% 61.6% 58.3% 40% 66.7% 36%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 689 1 49.9% 10.5% 41.3% 18.6% 61.7% 67.9% 56% 55.8% 22.2%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 603 1 47.6% 16.7% 55.3% 23.3% 58.9% 72.8% 28.2% 49.6% 25.4%
Nido, Tomás nym 344 1 48.3% 9.1% 45.2% 26.3% 40.4% 78.5% 38.9% 56.5% 23.7%
Perez, Salvador kc 662 1 49.2% 10.9% 36.2% 8.3% 57.7% 71.6% 34% 60.1% 34.2%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 825 1 45% 25.4% 49.5% 24.1% 67.1% 57.7% 23.9% 44.8% 20.3%
Hedges, Austin cle 265 1 48.3% 16.7% 27% 10% 66.7% 66.7% 35.7% 51.9% 29.6%
Vázquez, Christian min 511 1 47.9% 11.1% 47.2% 27% 59% 75.7% 26.9% 46.6% 30.6%
McGuire, Reese bos 541 0 46.6% 20% 37.8% 21.1% 58.8% 60.5% 27.9% 63% 20%
Barnes, Austin la 270 0 46.3% 11.1% 34% 0% 53.6% 73.9% 33.3% 53.4% 36.8%
Kelly, Carson det 481 0 49.3% 13.8% 57.1% 0% 67.3% 75.4% 33.3% 44.7% 18.9%
Contreras, Willson stl 536 0 49.1% 8% 42.9% 17.2% 67.8% 63.7% 41.9% 55% 21.3%
Tromp, Chadwick atl 303 0 46.5% 15% 37.8% 20% 58.5% 82% 28.6% 41.7% 16.7%
Knizner, Andrew tex 274 0 48.5% 20% 36% 12.5% 60.4% 67.3% 43.5% 58.7% 18.8%
Murphy, Tom sf 302 0 45% 6.7% 40.6% 13.3% 55.6% 69.1% 35% 51.4% 13.5%
Sánchez, Gary mil 214 0 43.9% 10% 38.9% 18.2% 63.3% 69% 21.1% 41.8% 26.1%
Thaiss, Matt ana 239 0 47.3% 7.1% 48% 0% 70.6% 67.4% 47.4% 38.7% 13.3%
Jansen, Danny tor 347 0 45.2% 11.8% 38.1% 9.5% 61.9% 67.9% 15% 44.6% 28.1%
Stallings, Jacob col 384 0 46.6% 11.1% 40.5% 17.6% 63.1% 74.4% 23.8% 39.5% 27.3%
Pinto, René tb 441 0 44.7% 21.7% 52.4% 13.8% 55.8% 58.9% 35.3% 45.2% 29.3%
Zavala, Seby sea 223 0 47.1% 14.3% 53.3% 15.4% 55.2% 72.5% 25% 60% 10.3%
Caratini, Victor hou 359 0 42.3% 9.1% 45.9% 20% 54.4% 67.2% 26.7% 44.6% 15.2%
Langeliers, Shea oak 847 0 45.1% 21.2% 49.5% 22.9% 63.2% 60.6% 30% 40.9% 20.2%
McCann, Kyle oak 314 0 45.9% 11.8% 40% 18.2% 50.8% 65.2% 30.4% 54.2% 27%
Amaya, Miguel chc 635 0 47.4% 24.1% 53.3% 15.6% 54.8% 68.6% 28.2% 54.7% 22.6%
Fortes, Nick mia 744 -1 46% 15% 26.7% 8.3% 63.3% 57.9% 36.5% 61.4% 22.4%
Barnhart, Tucker ari 358 -1 40.8% 0% 35.3% 8.3% 57.3% 59.7% 15.6% 47.9% 16.2%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 634 -1 45.1% 15.4% 58.2% 12.2% 55.8% 63.5% 13.6% 51.3% 19%
McCann, James bal 442 -1 45.2% 20.8% 48.5% 17.4% 54.5% 56.6% 33.3% 61.9% 17.5%
Ruiz, Keibert was 469 -1 41.8% 4% 44% 14.3% 67.8% 57% 24.4% 44% 21.6%
Herrera, Iván stl 509 -1 44.2% 16.1% 25.9% 17.1% 65.5% 62.4% 17.1% 56.4% 30.4%
Rutschman, Adley bal 623 -1 43.8% 21.4% 44.2% 26.7% 59.8% 59.6% 26.5% 45.3% 20.8%
Davis, Henry pit 580 -1 44.1% 9.7% 41.2% 25% 44.8% 73.9% 33.3% 56.6% 18.5%
Smith, Will la 819 -1 44% 11.6% 30.9% 29.4% 55.6% 63.4% 36.4% 55.4% 25.5%
Diaz, Yainer hou 728 -1 42.9% 13.6% 48.7% 31.3% 60.3% 59.2% 19.5% 39.5% 25.4%
Bart, Joey pit 363 -1 43% 7.1% 29.2% 15.8% 47.7% 69.1% 25% 54.1% 31.4%
Adams, Riley was 562 -1 42.5% 5.7% 33.3% 3.3% 55.7% 56.1% 51.7% 51.2% 23.2%
Wong, Connor bos 526 -1 43.7% 11.6% 45.1% 11.1% 49.4% 68.2% 30% 52.1% 25.4%
Jeffers, Ryan min 511 -1 45.6% 25% 43.3% 20.7% 57.1% 58.3% 44.4% 57.4% 15.1%
Lee, Korey cws 550 -1 42.7% 12.2% 36.7% 9.1% 53.3% 63.4% 27.8% 55.8% 19.7%
Maldonado, Martín cws 615 -2 39.7% 17.5% 42.7% 17.4% 43.8% 65.3% 26.7% 38.4% 12.7%
Narváez, Omar nym 468 -2 41% 20% 41.1% 18.8% 47.7% 57.6% 21.4% 57.1% 12.5%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 902 -2 45.2% 16.9% 32.2% 12% 64.9% 68.8% 26.5% 49.5% 18.4%
Campusano, Luis sd 836 -2 44.1% 14.3% 52.9% 28.6% 50% 67.5% 19.6% 48% 21.4%
Bethancourt, Christian mia 440 -2 42% 18.5% 39% 16.7% 59.7% 67.1% 20.7% 35.4% 17.6%
Contreras, William mil 905 -2 44.5% 16.7% 29.2% 13.5% 60.7% 61.1% 35.2% 52.6% 22.4%
Maile, Luke cin 418 -2 37.3% 6.9% 45.6% 29.4% 43.9% 63.4% 15.6% 33.8% 7.1%
Gomes, Yan chc 444 -2 39.9% 17.1% 46% 15% 53.5% 61.1% 18.2% 40% 12.9%