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
▾
2025
▾
Min Called Pitches: Qualified
▾


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
Kirk, Alejandro tor 1,504 7 49.1% 20.2% 43.6% 16.7% 62.7% 58.7% 36.4% 58% 27.7%
Narváez, Carlos bos 1,529 5 44.9% 14.9% 46% 24.1% 59.3% 63.3% 25.6% 45.7% 23.1%
Bailey, Patrick sf 1,367 5 47% 19.4% 42.5% 26.5% 61.8% 59.5% 38.1% 53.9% 27.1%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 1,381 5 45.8% 16.5% 41% 11.5% 58.5% 57.9% 31.9% 56.3% 28.6%
Dingler, Dillon det 1,495 5 46.6% 13.4% 47.9% 15.2% 52.5% 64.9% 31% 55.3% 27.8%
Wells, Austin nyy 1,564 4 45.7% 13.2% 38.5% 20.4% 52.5% 64.4% 27.2% 60.7% 29%
Escarra, J.C. nyy 501 2 49.9% 16.1% 46.7% 50% 46.3% 65.8% 25.5% 64.3% 34.5%
Torrens, Luis nym 969 2 42.4% 11.5% 36.7% 23.2% 50.6% 63.5% 23.1% 52.4% 20.7%
Hedges, Austin cle 611 2 48% 26.5% 57% 33.3% 59.4% 60.8% 39.5% 40.5% 28%
Raleigh, Cal sea 1,601 2 43.3% 19.5% 44% 26.5% 58.8% 57.8% 22.2% 47% 20.3%
Langeliers, Shea ath 1,641 1 40.9% 10.6% 39.7% 18.7% 46.3% 62.5% 19.5% 45.2% 21.6%
Murphy, Sean atl 1,196 1 41.8% 11.3% 35.3% 19.7% 46.5% 62.1% 25.7% 49.2% 24.8%
Naylor, Bo cle 1,527 1 43.2% 19.9% 43.5% 19.8% 64.2% 57% 25.3% 45% 19.1%
Pagés, Pedro stl 1,370 1 44.7% 16.5% 37.8% 15.1% 55.9% 63.1% 32.5% 56.8% 22.4%
Wong, Connor bos 566 1 43.1% 5.7% 33.3% 11.8% 58.1% 67.3% 32.1% 47.4% 17.3%
Huff, Sam sf 509 1 43.2% 19.2% 52.5% 17.2% 60.9% 56% 21.3% 45.2% 15.9%
Rutschman, Adley bal 1,415 1 43.5% 18.9% 41.3% 17.7% 56.9% 59.9% 32.1% 45.7% 27.1%
Heineman, Tyler tor 482 1 46.5% 20% 44.3% 25% 51.5% 68.7% 37.1% 50% 29.5%
Baldwin, Drake atl 864 1 45.9% 7.3% 39.5% 6.5% 54.3% 57.6% 40.6% 56.9% 27.7%
Fortes, Nick mia 785 1 45.4% 9.1% 36.1% 15.4% 55.8% 59.8% 31.6% 60.3% 18%
Perez, Salvador kc 1,069 0 43.6% 20.5% 49.1% 19.5% 63.1% 49.4% 29.6% 48.7% 14.6%
Stallings, Jacob col 754 0 44.4% 14.3% 49.4% 11.1% 54.2% 57.2% 38.8% 46.1% 13%
Fermin, Freddy kc 980 0 43% 14.7% 35.3% 13.1% 61.2% 60% 27.9% 48.8% 24.4%
Higashioka, Kyle tex 740 0 42.2% 21.4% 33.3% 10.6% 49.2% 61% 38.7% 53.7% 18.2%
Maldonado, Martín sd 892 0 41.8% 16% 50% 30% 49.1% 60.7% 25% 44.4% 20.4%
Contreras, William mil 1,864 0 43.9% 20.5% 42.3% 13.5% 59.8% 57% 22.8% 51.9% 20.6%
Amaya, Miguel chc 764 0 42.1% 10.7% 37.2% 29.5% 49.7% 67.6% 24.3% 48.6% 12.3%
Heim, Jonah tex 1,250 0 41.8% 13.5% 35% 17.2% 50.2% 62.8% 17.9% 52.4% 19.8%
Goodman, Hunter col 1,258 0 42.3% 12.2% 45.6% 21.7% 53.4% 62.6% 25.3% 42.8% 19.7%
Herrera, Jose ari 821 0 42.5% 12.7% 40.2% 18.6% 51.4% 63.2% 28.8% 46.7% 24.8%
Trevino, Jose cin 1,127 0 41.9% 6.2% 47.8% 16.7% 42.5% 70.4% 14.3% 41.1% 24.3%
Ramírez, Agustín mia 604 0 45% 6.7% 55.4% 5.3% 51.8% 59.6% 32.4% 57.2% 23%
Pozo, Yohel stl 450 0 43.6% 9.5% 48.6% 37.5% 59.5% 50.6% 40% 41.2% 8.7%
Kelly, Carson chc 1,115 -1 40.6% 12% 48% 18.9% 53.5% 56.3% 11.3% 45.1% 16%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 736 -1 42.1% 16.7% 38.5% 17.1% 55.9% 61.2% 18.9% 44% 13.6%
d'Arnaud, Travis ana 810 -1 42.1% 21.4% 39.8% 14.9% 59.4% 64.3% 16.9% 42.6% 14.8%
Garver, Mitch sea 483 -1 38.1% 14.3% 30.5% 15.4% 48.2% 51% 36.4% 44.9% 15.8%
Caratini, Victor hou 754 -1 41.2% 15.9% 46.7% 11.9% 44.7% 65.3% 19.1% 45.4% 27%
Hicks, Liam mia 786 -1 40.7% 16.4% 44.2% 26.9% 44.9% 58.3% 19.1% 49.5% 20.9%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 611 -1 38.3% 0% 36.4% 21.4% 28.2% 64.7% 19% 48.5% 16.4%
Davis, Henry pit 790 -1 41% 16.1% 44.6% 11.1% 40.8% 62.3% 16.7% 51.9% 25.6%
Díaz, Elias sd 1,188 -2 40% 25.7% 42.6% 23.1% 57.5% 52% 33.3% 36% 9.6%
Diaz, Yainer hou 1,409 -2 39.8% 12.6% 39.8% 19% 55.3% 56.9% 24% 44.1% 15.6%
Bart, Joey pit 1,088 -2 40.6% 9.2% 32% 24.1% 52.7% 62% 31.5% 47.1% 17.5%
Jeffers, Ryan min 1,126 -2 40.9% 20.2% 47.3% 11.6% 53.8% 56.1% 27.3% 42.2% 14.3%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 1,820 -2 41.2% 23.9% 38.4% 14.3% 61.8% 51.7% 16.9% 44.7% 13.9%
Adams, Riley was 469 -2 35% 5% 42.1% 20% 47.4% 45.8% 21.6% 42.9% 8.9%
Thaiss, Matt tb 929 -2 37% 12.2% 31.5% 22.7% 53.1% 62.8% 16.4% 42.1% 8%
Vázquez, Christian min 965 -2 40.4% 19.4% 42.1% 16.4% 49.3% 55.1% 25.6% 44% 18.8%
Quero, Edgar cws 882 -3 35.7% 4.1% 42.6% 13% 35.7% 54.9% 15.1% 44% 21.9%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 1,415 -3 40.1% 18.9% 45.9% 17.7% 49.2% 53.7% 22.3% 40.5% 23.1%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 980 -4 37.8% 14.3% 39.8% 9.8% 45.2% 57.1% 24.1% 43.4% 16.7%
Smith, Will la 1,626 -5 41.1% 5.6% 33.3% 16.9% 57.9% 53.4% 21.8% 49.3% 25.6%
Jansen, Danny tb 1,247 -5 37.9% 11.4% 37% 7.8% 54.9% 54.9% 29.8% 38.4% 23.6%
Ruiz, Keibert was 1,852 -6 38.7% 10.2% 39.9% 21.6% 57.1% 52.6% 20% 42.2% 13.3%