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 387 2 51.9% 13.8% 47.1% 37% 56.1% 75.9% 40.6% 55.6% 41.7%
Díaz, Elias col 586 2 47.6% 34% 53.7% 31.3% 73.8% 57.7% 27% 33.7% 14.9%
Trevino, Jose nyy 365 2 55.3% 16% 45.5% 35.7% 61.3% 78.6% 38.1% 55.3% 46.7%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 533 2 52% 17.9% 61.7% 15.8% 73% 65.1% 22.5% 53% 31%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 396 1 48.5% 16.7% 48.8% 19.4% 44.4% 73.8% 47.1% 50% 34.9%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 507 1 50.5% 11.1% 41.3% 12.9% 65.5% 69.1% 57.5% 56% 18.2%
Heim, Jonah tex 502 1 48.2% 22.2% 41.5% 37.1% 64.6% 72.3% 33.3% 40.2% 32.3%
Vázquez, Christian min 345 1 49.9% 15% 53.3% 26.1% 60% 75.9% 27.8% 45% 31.1%
Naylor, Bo cle 487 1 53.4% 19.5% 49.1% 20.8% 68.4% 78.9% 22.6% 60% 25.6%
Amaya, Miguel chc 411 1 50.4% 29.4% 57.9% 17.6% 52.4% 67.1% 28.6% 63.2% 25.6%
Perez, Salvador kc 475 1 49.1% 13.5% 40.5% 5.9% 62.1% 71.1% 38.2% 56% 29.1%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 400 1 49.8% 14.8% 58% 20% 63.8% 69.9% 28.1% 47.5% 38.3%
Raleigh, Cal sea 566 1 48.8% 15.4% 39.7% 26.5% 61.9% 73.9% 40% 51.2% 26.2%
Rogers, Jake det 345 0 49.3% 22.2% 38.1% 23.1% 59.4% 58.1% 35.5% 64.6% 25.8%
Ruiz, Keibert was 243 0 42% 7.7% 54.2% 15.4% 61.3% 57.1% 33.3% 42.9% 23.3%
Fortes, Nick mia 535 0 45.2% 18.5% 28.1% 9.7% 62.7% 55.7% 33.3% 60.8% 20.5%
Hedges, Austin cle 215 0 47.9% 22.2% 27.8% 11.1% 68.2% 64.3% 36.4% 51.1% 31.6%
Knizner, Andrew tex 193 0 46.6% 13.3% 28.6% 14.3% 64.9% 64.9% 36.8% 61% 13%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 601 0 45.1% 22% 48.7% 20.5% 66.7% 57% 25.5% 45% 20.8%
Rutschman, Adley bal 407 0 45.2% 28.6% 45.3% 31.6% 63.4% 64% 25% 43.4% 20.7%
Fermin, Freddy kc 325 0 44.9% 21.4% 31.4% 9.1% 52.6% 60.4% 33.3% 70.7% 21.4%
Contreras, Willson stl 332 0 48.5% 5.3% 42.4% 15.8% 59.3% 69.5% 31.3% 55.1% 22.9%
Stallings, Jacob col 255 0 42.7% 12.5% 30.8% 11.1% 59.3% 74.5% 6.7% 36.5% 17.9%
Barnes, Austin la 195 0 47.2% 16.7% 32.1% 0% 52.3% 71% 36.4% 57.8% 37.5%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 422 0 45.5% 15.4% 59% 14.3% 50% 68.8% 19.4% 49.4% 20%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 193 0 47.2% 8.3% 58.3% 25% 57.6% 71.4% 20% 55.3% 21.4%
Kelly, Carson det 350 0 47.4% 9.5% 55.6% 0% 59.5% 77.1% 32.4% 44.8% 22.5%
Zavala, Seby sea 166 0 45.8% 25% 61.1% 20% 56.5% 66.7% 20% 58.1% 4.3%
Caratini, Victor hou 243 0 44.9% 6.3% 45.2% 25% 47.9% 69.2% 31.6% 58% 20.8%
Jeffers, Ryan min 348 0 46.8% 20.7% 43.5% 22.2% 58.9% 58.1% 45% 60% 18.9%
Murphy, Tom sf 226 0 44.7% 10% 40.9% 15.4% 56.8% 66.7% 30.8% 48.9% 13.8%
Diaz, Yainer hou 590 0 44.2% 14.9% 43.6% 27.8% 61.1% 62.6% 24.2% 44.7% 27.3%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 485 0 46.8% 15.8% 59.1% 19.4% 59.8% 71.3% 22.6% 49.4% 22.4%
Tromp, Chadwick atl 202 0 46.5% 18.8% 31.8% 11.1% 54.3% 83.7% 50% 42.6% 15%
Bart, Joey pit 228 0 44.3% 6.7% 40% 20% 42.6% 68.9% 30% 53.5% 33.3%
Stubbs, Garrett phi 156 0 41.7% 21.4% 30% 0% 61.5% 50% 9.1% 63.9% 26.9%
Bailey, Patrick sf 555 0 49.2% 21.6% 50% 18.8% 58.1% 65.2% 32.4% 54.7% 29.8%
Wong, Connor bos 385 0 44.7% 11.1% 41.5% 6.3% 46.3% 77.4% 34.6% 52.6% 30.4%
Pinto, René tb 387 0 43.9% 20.5% 55.6% 14.8% 54.5% 59.3% 35.7% 41% 27.5%
Bethancourt, Christian mia 287 -1 40.1% 15.8% 37.3% 21.4% 62% 61.9% 21.7% 39.3% 12.5%
Adams, Riley was 462 -1 42% 3.4% 37.7% 3.7% 52.7% 56.2% 54.2% 51% 15.9%
Smith, Will la 623 -1 43.8% 12.2% 27.4% 26.9% 54.9% 63.5% 30.8% 55.5% 26.2%
Lee, Korey cws 322 -1 42.5% 11.1% 40.9% 5.9% 50% 61.8% 25% 58.2% 20%
Narváez, Omar nym 322 -1 42.2% 18.5% 45.5% 10% 48.5% 56.5% 30% 57.1% 13.5%
Maldonado, Martín cws 470 -1 39.6% 16.7% 43% 17.9% 40% 63.7% 33.3% 42.7% 16.1%
Gomes, Yan chc 317 -1 40.4% 20% 51.6% 15.4% 53.8% 66.7% 18.4% 36.2% 16.7%
Maile, Luke cin 281 -1 39.5% 5.9% 47.7% 31.8% 46.6% 62.3% 15.8% 36% 5.6%
Langeliers, Shea oak 626 -1 44.7% 27% 50% 26.3% 63% 63.4% 29.8% 37.4% 17.2%
Davis, Henry pit 515 -1 44.5% 11.5% 40% 25.9% 42.9% 74.7% 36.7% 56.9% 18.8%
Herrera, Iván stl 409 -1 45% 19% 28.3% 18.5% 62.5% 61.3% 19.2% 59.3% 31.6%
McGuire, Reese bos 428 -1 44.9% 20.6% 37.1% 18.8% 55.8% 61.4% 21.9% 62.6% 19.6%
Barnhart, Tucker ari 237 -1 41.4% 0% 31.8% 15.4% 60.7% 54.5% 15% 45.1% 20%
McCann, James bal 326 -1 45.4% 21.7% 43.4% 18.8% 55.1% 57.4% 40% 62.5% 18.2%
Campusano, Luis sd 634 -1 45.7% 11.9% 55.4% 37.1% 56.4% 64.4% 18.9% 51.2% 21.6%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 624 -2 42.3% 14.9% 32.1% 6.3% 62.6% 67.8% 20.4% 43.6% 17.7%
Contreras, William mil 617 -2 44.4% 10% 32.4% 10% 59.5% 62.4% 36.7% 52.6% 20.3%