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
Wells, Austin nyy 479 2 50.3% 11.1% 46.6% 29.7% 54.7% 71% 41.9% 60% 37.2%
Naylor, Bo cle 577 2 52.7% 20% 49.2% 20.8% 63.8% 76.7% 25% 59.3% 26.9%
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 424 2 55.2% 20.7% 46% 31.3% 64.5% 75.8% 29.6% 56.3% 48.6%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 585 2 52% 17.4% 59.1% 14.3% 72.6% 66.9% 23.3% 54.1% 31.7%
Heim, Jonah tex 622 2 49.4% 23.3% 40.3% 31.7% 67.7% 71.4% 28.6% 45.8% 30.8%
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 251 1 48.2% 7.7% 60% 25% 57.1% 66.7% 20% 52.9% 33.3%
Raleigh, Cal sea 668 1 49.3% 14% 40.3% 27.9% 61.3% 75.6% 37.2% 50.7% 26.4%
Rogers, Jake det 456 1 50.2% 23.3% 37% 17.6% 59.8% 58.8% 41% 65.1% 34.9%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 618 1 50.8% 9.7% 39.7% 18.4% 65.1% 67.8% 57.1% 54.5% 26.4%
Bailey, Patrick sf 696 1 49.9% 23.8% 46.6% 17.1% 60.3% 64.8% 34.1% 57.8% 32.9%
Perez, Salvador kc 567 1 49.9% 11.9% 39.6% 9.5% 60.7% 72.5% 35.9% 59.1% 32.8%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 525 1 46.9% 16.3% 58.4% 18.2% 59.4% 71.3% 24.2% 49% 23.3%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 739 1 45.6% 24.6% 50% 26% 67.4% 57.4% 25.5% 44.6% 19.6%
Hedges, Austin cle 233 1 48.5% 22.2% 27.8% 11.1% 68.2% 63.5% 38.5% 52.1% 31.8%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 522 1 50.6% 15.6% 60% 16.7% 63.3% 67.6% 30% 50.6% 38.7%
Vázquez, Christian min 458 1 48% 13.3% 50% 29.4% 58% 75.5% 26.1% 42.5% 30.5%
Contreras, Willson stl 455 1 51.2% 8.7% 45.7% 17.4% 66.7% 68.3% 43.3% 57.4% 24%
Sánchez, Gary mil 180 0 43.3% 0% 38.9% 20% 61.9% 69.2% 23.5% 37% 28.6%
Murphy, Tom sf 259 0 44.4% 8.3% 43.5% 14.3% 56.4% 68.3% 31.6% 47.3% 14.7%
Stallings, Jacob col 282 0 43.6% 15% 34.5% 15.4% 61% 76.7% 5.9% 36.4% 17.2%
Amaya, Miguel chc 515 0 48.3% 26.7% 56.3% 16% 51.5% 67% 29.4% 58.9% 23.4%
Wong, Connor bos 474 0 46% 10.3% 44.6% 9.1% 51.9% 74.3% 33.3% 54.8% 29.1%
Kelly, Carson det 407 0 47.9% 8.3% 56.4% 0% 62.9% 75.4% 30.8% 45.3% 19.1%
McCann, Kyle oak 226 0 48.2% 7.1% 38.7% 25% 64.4% 67.3% 31.3% 52.6% 15.8%
Knizner, Andrew tex 198 0 46.5% 18.8% 26.7% 14.3% 65.8% 61.5% 36.8% 61% 13%
Thaiss, Matt ana 209 0 49.8% 8.3% 47.6% 0% 73.3% 69.2% 50% 42.3% 20%
Nido, Tomás nym 211 0 50.2% 11.1% 52% 33.3% 45.2% 74.5% 33.3% 64.1% 26.9%
Tromp, Chadwick atl 275 0 45.5% 15.8% 36.4% 8.3% 56.3% 82.5% 27.8% 40% 17.4%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 524 0 45.8% 14.7% 59.2% 11.4% 53% 66.3% 15.4% 52.6% 21.4%
Langeliers, Shea oak 746 0 45.2% 25.6% 49.5% 25.6% 63.7% 61.6% 27.3% 40.9% 18.2%
Jansen, Danny tor 256 0 43.8% 16.7% 37.1% 11.1% 58% 67.8% 16.7% 36.2% 30.4%
McGuire, Reese bos 462 0 45.5% 20.6% 39.1% 23.5% 54.9% 60.6% 28.2% 63.5% 17.6%
Rutschman, Adley bal 529 0 44.6% 27.3% 45.7% 32% 59% 61.4% 29% 44.3% 20.9%
Fermin, Freddy kc 420 0 46.2% 18.2% 37.3% 12.5% 53.7% 59% 40.6% 72% 20.4%
Zavala, Seby sea 201 0 47.3% 20% 50% 15.4% 59.3% 73% 29.4% 58% 7.7%
Caratini, Victor hou 295 0 44.4% 5.6% 45.5% 22.7% 53.4% 64% 33.3% 54.8% 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%
Barnes, Austin la 247 0 47.8% 11.8% 36.8% 0% 54.7% 75.6% 33.3% 56.6% 35%
Gomes, Yan chc 374 -1 40.9% 19.4% 48.8% 20% 52.8% 68.4% 19% 37.9% 14.3%
Fortes, Nick mia 618 -1 45.3% 18.8% 29.3% 9.1% 61.4% 59.8% 32.9% 58.6% 18.6%
Maile, Luke cin 379 -1 37.7% 7.4% 47.6% 31% 43.8% 63.1% 14.8% 32.4% 8.3%
Adams, Riley was 540 -1 41.7% 5.9% 33.8% 3.3% 54.7% 55.2% 52.7% 50% 19.2%
Bethancourt, Christian mia 371 -1 42% 18.2% 38.4% 17.6% 62.5% 66.7% 19.2% 35.3% 18.8%
Barnhart, Tucker ari 302 -1 40.7% 0% 36.7% 11.1% 56.7% 56.7% 17.2% 46.7% 17.2%
Smith, Will la 735 -1 43.8% 10% 31% 31.3% 54.8% 62.1% 32.6% 55.4% 27.5%
Herrera, Iván stl 456 -1 44.5% 15.4% 27.8% 16.1% 64.5% 61.9% 18.2% 57.6% 31.7%
Lee, Korey cws 441 -1 43.3% 8.8% 36.9% 9.5% 58.2% 61.4% 26.7% 57.1% 20%
Bart, Joey pit 310 -1 43.5% 4.8% 32.6% 15.8% 45.8% 70% 28.6% 53.7% 33.3%
McCann, James bal 374 -1 45.5% 20.8% 46.6% 16.7% 53.6% 55.4% 36.8% 63.4% 19.2%
Diaz, Yainer hou 655 -1 43.5% 14.8% 46.7% 30.8% 59.8% 60.9% 21.6% 42% 25.9%
Ruiz, Keibert was 330 -1 41.5% 5.9% 52.8% 13.3% 61.9% 56.1% 27% 44.4% 19.4%
Campusano, Luis sd 742 -1 44.6% 11.5% 54.2% 33.3% 53.3% 66% 19.5% 47.9% 21.2%
Narváez, Omar nym 399 -1 41.1% 17.6% 43.9% 21.4% 46.9% 58.7% 25% 54.5% 12.5%
Jeffers, Ryan min 407 -1 45.5% 23.3% 39.3% 17.4% 56.1% 58.8% 45.5% 56.7% 20%
Davis, Henry pit 580 -1 44.1% 9.7% 41.2% 25% 44.8% 74.7% 33.3% 56.6% 18.3%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 779 -2 43.5% 17% 30.7% 5% 62.4% 69.8% 23.3% 46.9% 16.3%
Contreras, William mil 795 -2 44.8% 13.6% 28.9% 13.3% 61.9% 61% 34.8% 53.7% 20.2%
Maldonado, Martín cws 549 -2 40.3% 17.6% 44% 19% 43.6% 63.8% 32% 40.2% 13.8%