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
Bailey, Patrick sf 2985 17 52.9% 24.8% 57.3% 28.3% 64.8% 71.6% 31.2% 54.9% 31.8%
Raleigh, Cal sea 3237 13 49.2% 21.7% 54.4% 30.8% 61% 68.3% 30.7% 47.1% 28.3%
Wells, Austin nyy 2628 11 49.3% 21.8% 48.6% 24.2% 57.8% 68.4% 33.3% 56.3% 30.7%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 2417 10 50.4% 21.7% 52% 23.4% 67.4% 62.5% 35.8% 56.3% 28.6%
Trevino, Jose nyy 1744 9 50.9% 23.9% 47.2% 18% 61% 73.6% 34.2% 53% 36.2%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 2216 8 48.4% 16% 50% 25.2% 53% 67% 38% 54.2% 31.2%
Rogers, Jake det 2201 7 50.3% 18.4% 51.2% 25.2% 60.1% 63.4% 36.8% 58.9% 30.8%
Naylor, Bo cle 2747 7 49.3% 24.3% 47.4% 21.2% 65.4% 68.6% 34.7% 51% 22.6%
Grandal, Yasmani pit 1765 6 48.8% 11.2% 48.3% 28.6% 47.6% 70.7% 34.5% 51.1% 38.9%
Vázquez, Christian min 2143 6 49.4% 17.7% 54.5% 30.8% 63.7% 72.8% 27.8% 44.5% 28.1%
Hedges, Austin cle 1325 6 51.1% 30.8% 50.3% 21.1% 62% 68.8% 28.4% 56.6% 26.2%
Jackson, Alex tb 1297 4 50.9% 11.3% 53.7% 26.2% 55.6% 71.6% 17% 58.2% 29.6%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 2311 3 47.3% 12.8% 53.1% 19.3% 54.5% 68.9% 27.5% 49.1% 32.2%
Caratini, Victor hou 1475 2 48.7% 18.6% 50% 29% 65% 68.9% 29.9% 48.2% 25.8%
Díaz, Elias sd 2049 2 47% 30% 57.1% 32.4% 66.7% 62.1% 23% 37.3% 14.4%
Kelly, Carson tex 2054 1 48.8% 16.4% 39.6% 32.8% 65.5% 68.5% 35.1% 52.7% 26.2%
Pagés, Pedro stl 1631 1 45.6% 23.1% 47.2% 18.1% 63.3% 61.8% 29.6% 47.2% 16.9%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 2233 1 47.2% 18.2% 37.3% 17.2% 61% 65.3% 37.6% 56.8% 22.6%
McGuire, Reese bos 1201 1 50.3% 24.4% 44.9% 26.2% 61% 66.5% 33.3% 63.1% 27.1%
Murphy, Sean atl 1806 1 46.8% 12.2% 43.9% 20.2% 53.6% 68.9% 32.4% 55.3% 21.8%
Barnes, Austin la 1093 0 45.2% 12.7% 39.6% 11.1% 58.3% 67.2% 20.3% 51.8% 32%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 2056 0 46.7% 16.8% 46.1% 21.4% 57.3% 67.2% 31.5% 53.7% 21.3%
Perez, Salvador kc 2471 0 48.3% 19.4% 46.3% 18.4% 60% 67.2% 38.2% 51.1% 26.8%
Herrera, Iván stl 1469 0 46.8% 17.2% 42% 13.4% 63.3% 61.9% 32.3% 55% 27.7%
Nido, Tomás chc 1184 0 45.7% 11.3% 48% 24.4% 42.3% 77.1% 28.4% 45.2% 25.2%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 2122 0 47.3% 21.5% 52% 19.8% 59% 64.5% 28.8% 50.8% 19.3%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 3136 0 44.7% 20.1% 52.3% 32.1% 54.9% 67.5% 20.9% 44% 18.6%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 3349 -1 45.1% 25.3% 48.9% 23.2% 61.9% 57.3% 32.7% 46% 19.5%
Fortes, Nick mia 2751 -1 46.1% 20.9% 41.2% 18.3% 56.7% 64.9% 32.3% 52.9% 25.2%
Contreras, William mil 3407 -1 47.7% 15.5% 44% 26.1% 59.7% 66.1% 34.2% 53.5% 27.1%
Heim, Jonah tex 2958 -1 46.9% 21.1% 41.6% 29.7% 62.6% 66.8% 28.7% 47.6% 21.1%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 2632 -2 45% 13.3% 37.7% 13.2% 62.1% 63.2% 34.4% 51.3% 18.8%
Casali, Curt sf 1065 -2 46.7% 24.1% 49.7% 20% 62.5% 64.1% 27.4% 51.3% 15.4%
Fermin, Freddy kc 2084 -2 47.6% 14.7% 38.2% 20.6% 58% 66.8% 27.8% 62.4% 25.9%
Contreras, Willson stl 1392 -2 44.1% 12.8% 52.6% 19.8% 62.3% 59.2% 30.1% 45.3% 18.5%
Thaiss, Matt ana 1026 -2 42.7% 24.3% 45.1% 21.6% 57.9% 60.3% 25.7% 42.8% 14.5%
Stubbs, Garrett phi 1296 -2 44.1% 12.3% 34.3% 9% 56.3% 61.2% 28% 53.4% 25.8%
Bart, Joey pit 1660 -2 44.2% 7.2% 37.7% 32.5% 50.9% 68.6% 20.6% 50.9% 27.3%
Ruiz, Keibert was 2968 -2 45% 19.4% 44.9% 25.1% 61.8% 67.2% 22.6% 43.8% 19.9%
Rutschman, Adley bal 2815 -3 46% 32.4% 55.2% 34.8% 61.4% 65.2% 27.6% 38.2% 13.4%
Maldonado, Martín cws 1353 -3 42.4% 15.4% 43% 26.7% 53% 67% 20.5% 37.6% 19.9%
McCann, Kyle oak 1055 -3 44.5% 13.3% 42.7% 21.7% 54.4% 64.7% 33.3% 46.9% 22.4%
Jansen, Danny bos 2090 -4 43.3% 18.7% 47.3% 17.6% 59.4% 63.6% 27.1% 38.7% 20.7%
Amaya, Miguel chc 2951 -4 45.7% 26.1% 51.3% 21% 54.9% 62.5% 27.2% 49.5% 24%
Adams, Riley was 1100 -4 41.5% 6.8% 41.3% 11.5% 53% 57.6% 35.6% 50% 26.8%
Maile, Luke cin 1227 -4 40.7% 10% 52% 28.9% 47.5% 70% 16% 35.9% 11.5%
Bethancourt, Christian chc 1254 -4 45.1% 21.5% 44.7% 30.2% 64.9% 68.4% 25.5% 39.5% 12.8%
Langeliers, Shea oak 3467 -5 44.2% 19.4% 51.5% 24.7% 59.3% 67.2% 20% 39% 17.9%
McCann, James bal 1695 -5 44.6% 22.8% 50% 25% 53.2% 58.1% 28% 53.1% 19.8%
Jeffers, Ryan min 2167 -6 44.6% 19.7% 49.5% 20% 54.8% 59.4% 31.6% 52.4% 16.3%
Lee, Korey cws 2850 -7 43.2% 19.4% 45.1% 13.8% 60% 60.8% 22.4% 49% 19.6%
Smith, Will la 3254 -7 43.6% 20.3% 47% 21.6% 57% 62.2% 27.9% 46.1% 18.7%
Stallings, Jacob col 2009 -7 42.7% 11.8% 46.2% 19.3% 56.3% 65% 24.8% 42.1% 24.3%
Wong, Connor bos 2694 -8 45% 11.3% 45.6% 20.4% 54.7% 68.3% 33.8% 47.9% 19.1%
Campusano, Luis sd 2130 -8 44% 17.7% 49.7% 20.7% 46.7% 69.1% 25.2% 48% 24.4%
Diaz, Yainer hou 2882 -8 44.8% 17.6% 54.1% 27% 60.9% 62.5% 21.2% 40.2% 23.2%