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
▾
2023
▾
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
Hedges, Austin pit 932 5 54.7% 35.2% 51.5% 37.2% 60.9% 74.1% 41.5% 61.6% 30.5%
Heim, Jonah tex 1207 5 51% 25.9% 58.7% 33.7% 65% 72.8% 28.2% 42.8% 22.8%
Murphy, Sean atl 1257 5 51.1% 19.3% 39% 20% 63.3% 66.7% 36.8% 63.2% 28.7%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 964 3 49.7% 24.1% 57.4% 32.7% 65% 64.1% 37.7% 54.3% 23.3%
Trevino, Jose nyy 940 3 50.1% 23% 50.5% 23.9% 66.4% 67.8% 41.6% 54.7% 22.4%
Rogers, Jake det 861 3 50.6% 27.6% 46.6% 29.2% 63.2% 63.4% 27.5% 60.1% 29.9%
Contreras, William mil 1131 3 48.8% 19.2% 48.4% 23.9% 58.9% 63.4% 25.6% 60.9% 31.7%
Fortes, Nick mia 983 2 49.2% 17.2% 46.7% 10.9% 58.7% 72.3% 35.2% 60% 30%
Jansen, Danny tor 740 2 49.6% 29.4% 58.5% 24.4% 71.2% 57% 37.5% 51.7% 17.1%
Gallagher, Cam cle 587 2 54% 25.6% 50% 38.7% 69.5% 66.1% 40% 54.5% 36.2%
Delay, Jason pit 686 2 50.3% 12.3% 51.8% 30% 53.5% 72.1% 44.1% 61.8% 31.4%
Bart, Joey sf 656 2 54.1% 14% 63.1% 23.5% 58.4% 69.5% 31% 67.8% 28.8%
Higashioka, Kyle nyy 746 1 45.6% 10.3% 45.5% 20.7% 58.9% 64.2% 31.1% 54.5% 24.4%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 930 1 48.8% 17.7% 44.8% 18.5% 66.5% 62% 42.1% 56.1% 22.6%
Nido, Tomás nym 538 1 47.2% 16% 46.6% 19% 64.6% 70% 10.5% 50% 26.9%
Wynns, Austin col 407 1 46.4% 28.6% 57.1% 45% 66.2% 66% 26.3% 27.7% 9.1%
Vázquez, Christian min 992 1 48.3% 13.5% 42.1% 32.6% 58.6% 69% 23.2% 57.7% 25.9%
Contreras, Willson stl 1192 1 46.6% 30.1% 46.8% 33.3% 64.6% 63.2% 21.7% 41.7% 14.9%
Zunino, Mike cle 912 1 47.6% 26.8% 47.7% 13.8% 67.3% 55.5% 35.4% 55.2% 23%
Caratini, Victor mil 607 1 43.7% 23.4% 50% 20% 54.7% 58.9% 22% 45.1% 28.3%
Bailey, Patrick sf 369 1 47.7% 47.6% 57.1% 20.8% 51.8% 58.1% 27.5% 53.6% 37.5%
Barnhart, Tucker chc 623 1 49.6% 36.1% 50% 20.6% 60.8% 62.4% 32% 58.1% 22.2%
Zavala, Seby cws 769 1 48.9% 19.7% 56.1% 25% 68.1% 68% 40.5% 47.8% 19.8%
Sabol, Blake sf 577 1 49% 29.4% 50.6% 20% 59.8% 73.3% 29.4% 50% 26.2%
Jeffers, Ryan min 671 0 46.3% 33.3% 56.7% 20.7% 63.6% 55.8% 42.3% 43.1% 14.5%
Fermin, Freddy kc 381 0 47.5% 15% 55.8% 17.6% 58.3% 61.1% 37% 44.9% 34.8%
Wallach, Chad ana 482 0 47.5% 19.1% 45.2% 11.4% 67% 64% 36.4% 49.5% 33.3%
Sullivan, Brett sd 427 0 46.6% 6.3% 50% 26.7% 60.8% 62.5% 4% 50% 36.4%
Haase, Eric det 829 0 47.9% 12% 53.2% 26.5% 63.9% 61.9% 23.6% 55.8% 20.7%
Maile, Luke cin 498 0 48% 12.5% 65.4% 32.4% 64.4% 66.3% 31.4% 51.9% 12.9%
Casali, Curt cin 551 0 46.3% 21.6% 65.4% 15.4% 55.3% 52.6% 21.6% 50.5% 19.1%
Thaiss, Matt ana 731 0 47.1% 24.5% 57.5% 25% 63.2% 64.1% 18.9% 44.9% 22.2%
McCann, James bal 453 0 45.9% 23.5% 44% 28.6% 71.6% 61.3% 15% 50.5% 20.3%
Knizner, Andrew stl 759 0 45.2% 20.9% 59.3% 34.9% 63.7% 59.5% 29.2% 33.8% 14.5%
Bethancourt, Christian tb 953 0 46.9% 32.9% 61.6% 24.4% 72% 57.3% 27.7% 43.1% 12.9%
McGuire, Reese bos 651 0 47.9% 25% 59.1% 28% 62.4% 63.3% 28.6% 47.1% 20.6%
Barnes, Austin la 643 0 49.6% 15.2% 48.1% 16% 52% 70.5% 25.5% 53.1% 41%
Murphy, Tom sea 493 0 45.8% 16.2% 44.3% 33.3% 61.9% 57.1% 36.4% 50% 17.4%
Pérez, Carlos oak 525 0 44.2% 21.7% 54.4% 39.5% 54.1% 67.6% 16.7% 40.9% 10%
Raleigh, Cal sea 1089 0 48.4% 24.1% 53.1% 16.1% 65.5% 58% 29.8% 50.2% 30.1%
Gomes, Yan chc 852 0 44.2% 35.4% 58.4% 17.4% 55.6% 57.7% 30.3% 39.5% 16.9%
Smith, Will la 1008 -1 44.7% 12.9% 44.7% 18.5% 57.2% 64.5% 23.4% 58.2% 15.1%
Díaz, Elias col 1417 -1 45.2% 25.2% 61.9% 22.5% 65.5% 49% 33.3% 40.3% 17.1%
Herrera, Jose ari 557 -1 40.2% 20% 41.1% 23.8% 54.4% 63.9% 20.5% 41.4% 10.3%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 445 -1 40.9% 20% 37.7% 9.7% 60.8% 50% 33.3% 56.5% 10.9%
Grandal, Yasmani cws 1070 -1 45.3% 17.4% 54% 38.1% 56.3% 63% 26.2% 48.1% 19.5%
Diaz, Yainer hou 390 -1 42.3% 25.7% 40% 21.7% 49% 59.8% 31.6% 45.9% 17.2%
Nola, Austin sd 1059 -1 44.5% 15.1% 54.5% 21.3% 55.8% 62% 24.3% 49.7% 23.1%
Rutschman, Adley bal 1199 -1 46.9% 21.8% 66.9% 33.9% 73.2% 58.6% 25.8% 34.1% 17.4%
Stallings, Jacob mia 782 -2 44.9% 11.6% 42.3% 21.9% 55.6% 70.1% 35.9% 48.8% 21.4%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 1513 -2 45.5% 18.4% 52.6% 16% 61.3% 56.2% 33.6% 45.5% 25%
Perez, Salvador kc 1170 -3 43.1% 13.4% 54.1% 16.4% 51.9% 65.4% 26.3% 44.3% 23.4%
Wong, Connor bos 1086 -3 42.9% 15.6% 46.8% 37% 53.2% 64.1% 20.5% 44.4% 12.5%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 1229 -3 45.2% 16.5% 43.1% 6.3% 63% 57.9% 31.3% 52.1% 23.6%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 714 -3 40.8% 25.3% 62.3% 32% 56.2% 53.2% 26.7% 36% 10%
Mejía, Francisco tb 758 -3 43.4% 14.3% 54.3% 21.6% 62.2% 57.1% 25.7% 41.3% 26.8%
Maldonado, Martín hou 1143 -5 41.6% 27.4% 46.7% 24.4% 52.2% 57% 17.7% 43.7% 18.3%
Langeliers, Shea oak 1374 -6 42.6% 19% 44.8% 21.7% 52.7% 63.2% 27.3% 42.9% 20.5%
Ruiz, Keibert was 1551 -7 43% 23.3% 51.1% 23.9% 60.6% 59.9% 19.7% 41.7% 14.5%