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 3214 16 52.5% 23.3% 57.4% 28.4% 64.6% 70.5% 29.8% 54.8% 32.2%
Raleigh, Cal sea 3404 13 49.1% 22.4% 55% 30% 60.9% 68.5% 30% 46.3% 28.4%
Wells, Austin nyy 3111 12 48.6% 23% 49.3% 23.9% 58.1% 66% 31.5% 55.1% 29.3%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 2586 10 49.8% 21.7% 50.7% 21.9% 67.3% 61.2% 34.6% 56.1% 28.8%
Trevino, Jose nyy 1890 10 50.7% 22.3% 47.3% 19% 61% 74.4% 33.6% 52.4% 35.7%
Rogers, Jake det 2525 9 51% 19.6% 52.6% 26.7% 61.7% 64.3% 35.5% 59% 30.1%
Naylor, Bo cle 3105 8 49.3% 23.9% 48.4% 19.6% 66.9% 68.1% 34.8% 50.2% 22%
Grandal, Yasmani pit 1843 6 48.8% 12.3% 48.8% 29% 47.5% 70.6% 34.4% 52.1% 37.6%
Hedges, Austin cle 1464 6 50.8% 29.2% 53.1% 18.3% 62.2% 69.8% 30.6% 54.6% 24.8%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 2754 6 46.7% 15.2% 48% 22.1% 52.3% 66.2% 35.7% 53.9% 28.4%
Vázquez, Christian min 2306 6 49.1% 17.4% 53.5% 29.6% 63.8% 72.8% 27.9% 44.7% 27.7%
Jackson, Alex tb 1297 4 50.9% 11.3% 53.7% 26.2% 55.6% 71.6% 17% 58.2% 29.6%
Caratini, Victor hou 1581 3 49.1% 19.6% 52.2% 29.6% 65.4% 68.6% 30% 48% 24.1%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 2436 2 47.4% 17.9% 37.1% 16% 60.7% 65.5% 36.4% 59% 21.9%
Murphy, Sean atl 1950 2 47.3% 13% 44.3% 22% 55.2% 69.4% 30.6% 54.9% 23%
Díaz, Elias sd 2140 2 46.9% 31.4% 57.5% 32.1% 66.4% 61.6% 22.2% 37% 14%
Herrera, Jose ari 984 2 48.5% 14.9% 52.9% 28.3% 58.5% 65.2% 30.6% 46.6% 30%
McGuire, Reese bos 1201 2 50.3% 24.4% 44.9% 26.2% 61% 66.5% 33.3% 63.1% 27.1%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 2445 2 46.8% 12.5% 52.6% 20.7% 54.8% 68% 27.3% 48.6% 31.5%
Pagés, Pedro stl 1779 1 45.8% 23.1% 48.6% 17.1% 63% 61.5% 29% 46.9% 18.2%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 2383 1 47.5% 18.1% 47.7% 23.5% 59% 66.3% 31.4% 54% 23.4%
Kelly, Carson tex 2161 1 48.5% 15.6% 40.8% 31.8% 64.1% 68.9% 35.2% 52.2% 26%
Herrera, Iván stl 1551 1 47.5% 17.3% 42.6% 14% 63.8% 62.5% 34% 55.7% 27.9%
Torrens, Luis nym 1019 1 48.9% 19.2% 53.8% 10.3% 63.3% 66.8% 30.6% 53.4% 26.2%
Nido, Tomás chc 1184 0 45.7% 11.3% 48% 24.4% 42.3% 77.1% 28.4% 45.2% 25.2%
Barnes, Austin la 1158 0 45% 12.1% 39.4% 10.7% 58.4% 66.7% 21.1% 52.2% 31.5%
Contreras, William mil 3609 0 48% 15.3% 43.8% 25.6% 59.4% 67% 34.9% 54.1% 28%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 2235 0 47.2% 21.7% 51.9% 20.3% 59% 64.5% 28.6% 51.1% 19.4%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 3344 -1 44.5% 20.3% 51.9% 32.3% 55.1% 67.6% 20.9% 43.3% 18.2%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 3475 -1 44.8% 24.8% 48.3% 22.2% 61.8% 57.4% 32.7% 46% 19.5%
Fortes, Nick mia 2922 -1 46.4% 22.2% 41.7% 20.8% 57.1% 64.3% 32.5% 52.8% 26%
Heim, Jonah tex 3130 -1 47% 22% 42.6% 29.3% 61.5% 66.3% 29% 48% 21.5%
Ruiz, Keibert was 3129 -1 45% 19.2% 45.7% 25.3% 61.2% 66.8% 22% 44.2% 20.6%
Fermin, Freddy kc 2232 -1 47.8% 13.9% 38.5% 19.1% 57.2% 67.3% 27% 63.9% 26.8%
Perez, Salvador kc 2796 -2 46.9% 16.9% 45.7% 17.9% 59% 64.9% 37.4% 50.9% 25%
Stubbs, Garrett phi 1362 -2 43.8% 11.8% 35.5% 8.8% 55.6% 61.4% 26.8% 52.9% 25%
Bart, Joey pit 1862 -2 43.6% 8.8% 38.7% 32.3% 48.2% 69.1% 19.8% 49.8% 27.1%
Casali, Curt sf 1166 -2 47.2% 25% 48.1% 22.4% 61.8% 64.5% 29.6% 52.9% 15.7%
Contreras, Willson stl 1392 -2 44.1% 12.8% 52.6% 19.8% 62.3% 59.2% 30.1% 45.3% 18.5%
Jansen, Danny bos 2175 -3 43.5% 20.6% 47.7% 16.5% 59.8% 63.7% 27.5% 38.9% 20.3%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 2966 -3 45.2% 12.6% 37.8% 12.5% 62.2% 62.3% 34% 52.3% 19.7%
Maldonado, Martín cws 1353 -3 42.4% 15.4% 43% 26.7% 53% 67% 20.5% 37.6% 19.9%
McCann, Kyle oak 1113 -3 44.9% 13.6% 42.6% 21.3% 55.6% 66% 32.8% 46.3% 22.7%
Thaiss, Matt ana 1154 -3 42.4% 23.4% 44.4% 19.3% 57.5% 58.8% 25% 44.1% 14.4%
Rutschman, Adley bal 2996 -3 46% 33.2% 54% 33.3% 62% 65% 26.2% 38.5% 13.8%
Maile, Luke cin 1248 -4 40.6% 9.8% 52.3% 28.2% 48% 69.6% 15.8% 35.6% 11.3%
Adams, Riley was 1100 -4 41.5% 6.8% 41.3% 11.5% 53% 57.6% 35.6% 50% 26.8%
Bethancourt, Christian chc 1338 -4 45.3% 20.9% 45.2% 29% 65.7% 68.2% 25% 41.8% 13.3%
Amaya, Miguel chc 3091 -5 45.9% 27.3% 52.5% 22.1% 55.8% 62.2% 27.4% 48.9% 23.4%
McCann, James bal 1814 -5 44.8% 25% 49.6% 26% 54% 58.6% 27.2% 52.6% 19.4%
Langeliers, Shea oak 3680 -5 43.9% 18.8% 50.4% 25% 59.4% 66.4% 19.7% 39.1% 18.3%
Wong, Connor bos 2868 -7 45.5% 12.1% 46.4% 20.2% 55.2% 68.5% 32.8% 48.9% 19.5%
Jeffers, Ryan min 2280 -7 44.6% 19.2% 50.5% 19.2% 55.7% 59.5% 31% 52% 15.6%
Diaz, Yainer hou 3083 -7 45.2% 19.4% 54.4% 26.6% 61.6% 62.7% 23% 40.8% 22.4%
Lee, Korey cws 2990 -7 43% 18.9% 45.5% 13.7% 60.2% 60.6% 23.2% 48.6% 19.3%
Stallings, Jacob col 2144 -7 42.7% 13.6% 46% 18.5% 57.1% 65% 24.4% 42.1% 24.2%
Campusano, Luis sd 2130 -8 44% 17.7% 49.7% 20.7% 46.7% 69.1% 25.2% 48% 24.4%
Smith, Will la 3913 -10 43.6% 18.4% 46.9% 19.7% 58% 61.7% 29.7% 46.9% 19.8%