STL0
4th
PIT0
MIA0
1st
NYM0
NYY0
1st
DET0
Preview Matchup
Mahle vs. Imanaga
TEX
6:20 PM
CHC
Preview Matchup
Vásquez vs. Bido
SD
7:35 PM
ATH
Preview Matchup
Kremer vs. Pfaadt
BAL
7:40 PM
AZ
Preview Matchup
Martinez vs. Verlander
CIN
7:45 PM
SF
Preview Matchup
Knack vs. Irvin
LAD
8:05 PM
WSH
Preview Matchup
Brown vs. Castillo
HOU
8:10 PM
SEA
Preview Matchup
Burke vs. Allen
CWS
10:10 PM
CLE
Preview Matchup
Gausman vs. Houck
TOR
10:45 PM
BOS
Preview Matchup
Kikuchi vs. Pepiot
LAA
11:05 PM
TB
Preview Matchup
Walker vs. Holmes
PHI
11:15 PM
ATL
Preview Matchup
Ryan vs. Lugo
MIN
11:40 PM
KC
Preview Matchup
Alexander vs. Senzatela
MIL
12:40 AM
COL
<
>

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
▾
2022
▾
Min Pitches Called: 100
▾


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
1 Trevino, Jose nyy 2,719 17 53.8% 20.6% 44.9% 19.7% 71.1% 69.1% 40.5% 62.3% 30.9%
2 Heim, Jonah tex 2,921 12 51.6% 31% 58.8% 21.5% 65.9% 70.9% 36.2% 48.3% 26.9%
3 d'Arnaud, Travis atl 2,813 10 48.9% 21.6% 43% 25% 65.5% 60.3% 37.6% 57.1% 24.9%
4 Kirk, Alejandro tor 1,978 9 50.8% 24.1% 47% 14.5% 71% 60.8% 42.1% 58.5% 20.7%
5 Raleigh, Cal sea 2,777 9 49.2% 21.9% 54.5% 24.3% 65.1% 62.5% 26.7% 57.3% 27.4%
6 Murphy, Sean oak 3,263 8 49.6% 25.3% 48.2% 24.9% 61.3% 68.1% 29.8% 54.3% 31.1%
7 Narváez, Omar mil 2,370 6 49.9% 17% 47% 21.4% 63.9% 67.5% 37.3% 55.2% 24.4%
8 Nido, Tomás nym 2,391 5 50.4% 17.3% 50% 29.5% 58.3% 71.7% 31.4% 54.8% 32.9%
9 Molina, Yadier stl 2,202 5 49.1% 28.5% 60.6% 35.5% 63.8% 65.8% 29.9% 43.3% 22.6%
10 Serven, Brian col 1,564 5 50.2% 14.9% 60.2% 37.1% 59.2% 68% 34.3% 50.7% 26.4%
11 Zavala, Seby cws 1,380 4 51.5% 19% 55.6% 30.1% 67.3% 68.4% 36.2% 55.2% 27.2%
12 Higashioka, Kyle nyy 1,968 4 48.6% 11.5% 43.7% 14% 70.4% 58.6% 40.7% 59.4% 29.6%
13 Rutschman, Adley bal 2,356 4 49.6% 28.4% 52.7% 31.4% 68.2% 62.6% 40.5% 55.2% 18.6%
14 Grandal, Yasmani cws 1,705 4 47.9% 15.9% 59.3% 34.2% 62.5% 64.2% 20.2% 46.7% 22.3%
15 Heineman, Tyler pit 1,464 3 48% 15.2% 44.6% 21.3% 61.1% 65% 35.6% 56.8% 26.7%
16 McGuire, Reese bos 2,095 3 46.8% 32.4% 54.7% 24.3% 68.5% 60.2% 23.2% 45.7% 20.4%
17 Kelly, Carson ari 2,595 3 47.7% 19.3% 51.1% 19.3% 61.1% 58.4% 35.8% 53% 23.6%
18 Jeffers, Ryan min 1,540 2 48.1% 23.7% 56.8% 17.8% 64.3% 66.8% 26.9% 45.3% 28.5%
19 Barnes, Austin la 1,525 2 49.8% 11.8% 41.1% 14.6% 57.6% 65.1% 37.6% 67.1% 35.3%
20 Garcia, Aramis cin 1,070 2 49.3% 17.5% 49.6% 21.6% 71.4% 63.8% 46.2% 48.5% 23.7%
21 McCann, James nym 1,407 2 48.1% 15.9% 53.9% 20.9% 48.8% 71.1% 25.4% 55% 27.7%
22 Delay, Jason pit 1,447 2 48.6% 28.3% 49.4% 33.3% 55.7% 67.6% 28.9% 55.3% 26.7%
23 Sánchez, Gary min 2,278 1 47.2% 23.1% 51% 22% 60.4% 65.5% 28% 54.2% 23.8%
24 Viloria, Meibrys tex 523 1 51.8% 37.1% 50% 33.3% 67.6% 62.7% 40.9% 55.9% 23.4%
25 Plawecki, Kevin tex 1,486 1 48.3% 22.2% 56.7% 33% 62.3% 66.2% 29.3% 47.1% 18.9%
26 Vázquez, Christian hou 2,909 1 47.9% 22.7% 55.9% 26.5% 62.9% 63.7% 29.7% 50.5% 22.9%
27 León, Sandy min 745 1 50.5% 25% 59.1% 40% 67.2% 60.5% 32.3% 50.8% 18.1%
28 Hedges, Austin cle 2,585 1 48.9% 16.5% 46.5% 24.3% 66.5% 66.2% 34.9% 55.6% 28.1%
29 Pérez, Roberto pit 540 1 49.4% 18.9% 44.8% 31.6% 55.7% 71.5% 33.3% 55.5% 22.4%
30 Zunino, Mike tb 843 1 48.4% 8.8% 50.3% 31% 55.9% 71.8% 41% 56.4% 26.3%
31 Huff, Sam tex 720 1 50.1% 28% 45.6% 18.4% 72.4% 62.4% 41.5% 54.1% 27.3%
32 Caratini, Victor mil 2,422 1 48.4% 15.2% 49.8% 20.5% 56.6% 69.7% 32.1% 52.9% 32.5%
33 Thaiss, Matt ana 356 0 44.7% 5% 31.1% 11.8% 54.4% 75.9% 20.8% 56.5% 25.7%
34 Kolozsvary, Mark cin 197 0 47.7% 19% 48.5% 27.3% 52.9% 75% 22.2% 51.6% 14.3%
35 Herrera, Jose ari 1,194 0 46.6% 26.8% 39.2% 25.3% 61.7% 70% 30.2% 40.6% 24.1%
36 Godoy, José pit 175 0 46.9% 20% 42.9% 37.5% 66.7% 62.1% 40% 54.1% 19%
37 Stassi, Max ana 2,498 0 46.8% 25% 46.3% 20.8% 64.4% 58.4% 29.5% 54.8% 20%
38 Bethancourt, Christian tb 1,297 0 47.1% 15.2% 46.4% 22.8% 61.8% 67.4% 27% 51.2% 21.3%
39 Collins, Zack pit 240 0 42.5% 28.6% 42.5% 8.3% 75.5% 42.9% 23.8% 39.5% 11.8%
40 Murphy, Tom sea 322 0 45% 23.1% 48.9% 17.6% 64.1% 71.7% 10.5% 32.7% 33.3%
41 Papierski, Michael cin 920 0 45.5% 28.8% 47% 27% 55.6% 65.9% 15.6% 51.5% 23.6%
42 Garver, Mitch tex 449 0 47.4% 12.5% 51.4% 9.1% 63.3% 62.9% 27.8% 53.6% 25%
43 Pineda, Israel was 125 0 45.6% 25% 52% 57.1% 50% 64.5% 14.3% 33.3% 15.4%
44 Severino, Pedro mil 138 0 47.8% 0% 47.6% 18.8% 51.6% 76% 10% 60% 55.6%
45 Moreno, Gabriel tor 496 0 44.2% 10.6% 56.6% 0% 61.4% 64.6% 48.5% 50% 13.9%
46 Barrera, Tres was 494 0 47.2% 22.6% 62.1% 9.1% 63.9% 57.1% 38.5% 49.5% 20.7%
47 Wallach, Chad ana 291 0 45% 10% 52.6% 6.3% 65.7% 59.5% 17.4% 48.2% 23.1%
48 Piña, Manny atl 161 0 43.5% 14.3% 62.5% 18.2% 68.2% 53.3% 30% 40% 20%
49 Pinto, René tb 638 0 49.7% 12.8% 54.5% 16.2% 60.3% 62.2% 40.9% 55.6% 40.4%
50 Varsho, Daulton ari 638 0 44.8% 17.9% 37.9% 11.1% 53.7% 62.7% 27.3% 47.6% 27.9%
51 Pérez, Carlos cws 152 0 40.1% 30% 35.3% 0% 78.3% 48.5% 14.3% 33.3% 25.9%
52 Allen, Austin oak 102 0 45.1% 40% 40% 12.5% 76.5% 73.7% 12.5% 42.9% 0%
53 Wong, Connor bos 511 0 46.2% 18.9% 53.7% 38.5% 55.6% 71.6% 20% 45.5% 20%
54 Campusano, Luis sd 290 0 44.1% 11.8% 58.8% 28.6% 45.2% 73.8% 10% 39.2% 20.8%
55 Rivero, Sebastián kc 280 0 45% 30.4% 62.1% 18.2% 45.1% 65% 26.7% 46.8% 13.8%
56 Okey, Chris cin 140 0 41.4% 7.7% 30% 0% 50% 73.1% 40% 45.8% 33.3%
57 Nuñez, Dom col 336 0 44.3% 27.3% 44.9% 15.4% 62% 56.8% 36.4% 53% 4.9%
58 Mazeika, Patrick nym 560 0 46.1% 23.1% 50% 18.5% 60.9% 61.9% 33.3% 45.5% 16.9%
59 Henry, Payton mia 327 0 45% 13.8% 41% 11.1% 70.4% 47.4% 28% 56.7% 13.3%
60 Gallagher, Cam kc 389 0 46% 24.1% 51.6% 21.1% 63.1% 49.2% 31% 58.4% 23.4%
61 Herrera, Iván stl 195 0 45.1% 17.6% 59.3% 20% 62.5% 81.8% 14.3% 39.5% 25.9%
62 Bemboom, Anthony bal 497 0 47.7% 13.9% 21.8% 13.3% 68.9% 55.4% 39.5% 60.4% 36.5%
63 Lavastida, Bryan cle 118 0 38.1% 9.1% 52.6% 7.7% 62.5% 61.5% 22.2% 40.7% 20%
64 Hamilton, Caleb min 126 0 46.8% 7.1% 23.8% 25% 41.2% 76.5% 25% 88.9% 14.3%
65 Wynns, Austin sf 1,325 0 47.7% 14.9% 54.5% 31.1% 63.2% 65.2% 17.7% 48% 22%
66 Contreras, Willson chc 2,048 0 46% 20.3% 58.6% 22.4% 65.6% 55.5% 31.3% 42.9% 22.1%
67 O'Hoppe, Logan ana 113 0 45.1% 25% 41.7% 0% 62.5% 50% 42.9% 69.6% 18.2%
68 Gomes, Yan chc 1,993 0 46.6% 26.7% 56% 15.6% 66.7% 55% 31.7% 49.7% 15.8%
69 Maile, Luke cle 1,575 -1 44.3% 20.4% 51.4% 21.3% 62.4% 62.6% 23.9% 38.8% 20.9%
70 Langeliers, Shea oak 455 -1 45.1% 20% 68.4% 34.3% 55.7% 63.6% 6.5% 38.5% 19.6%
71 Jansen, Danny tor 1,631 -1 46.7% 16.5% 50.8% 12% 67.8% 59.6% 36% 48.3% 19.2%
72 Lee, Korey hou 193 -1 42.5% 11.1% 43.8% 20% 56% 57.1% 33.3% 48.4% 21.1%
73 Robinson, Chuckie cin 612 -1 44% 29.3% 53.1% 23.3% 61.2% 70% 24.1% 29.3% 14.9%
74 Knapp, Andrew sf 415 -1 41.4% 18.5% 43.6% 14.8% 56.3% 56% 20% 47.7% 15.6%
75 Bart, Joey sf 2,313 -1 47% 18.2% 54.6% 15.3% 57.4% 68.2% 27.9% 48.9% 26.5%
76 Realmuto, J.T. phi 4,144 -1 48% 21.6% 43.6% 23.5% 66.4% 63.5% 33.1% 51.9% 23.6%
77 Maldonado, Martín hou 3,272 -1 47.9% 25.6% 53.6% 26.9% 65.9% 60.9% 30.8% 48.6% 20.4%
78 Fortes, Nick mia 1,520 -1 48.7% 22.4% 50.6% 30.9% 62% 65.1% 28.1% 53.4% 23.2%
79 Stephenson, Tyler cin 1,352 -2 45.2% 16.8% 44.1% 21.3% 62.2% 63.9% 29.9% 44.6% 26.2%
80 Vogt, Stephen oak 423 -2 40.7% 13.9% 55.2% 23.5% 50% 63.5% 12.5% 28.6% 25%
81 Higgins, P.J. chc 783 -2 45.2% 16.7% 56% 34.3% 58.2% 54% 27.8% 47.5% 23.2%
82 Smith, Will la 3,027 -2 47.1% 19.4% 44.8% 21.5% 61.6% 67.9% 21.1% 52.1% 26.6%
83 Casali, Curt sea 1,314 -2 46.5% 19.2% 42.9% 18.8% 59.6% 62.2% 22.5% 52.3% 25.7%
84 Hummel, Cooper ari 433 -2 37.9% 4.5% 36.5% 9.4% 45.7% 64.2% 14.6% 47.1% 2.9%
85 Romine, Austin cin 1,195 -2 44.1% 18.9% 54% 21.4% 58.2% 63.9% 30.9% 43.2% 14.4%
86 Castro, Jason hou 624 -2 41.5% 22.2% 41.9% 14.3% 65% 62.1% 30.4% 32.3% 16.7%
87 Alfaro, Jorge sd 1,768 -2 46.7% 16.9% 47.6% 34.1% 53.8% 71.9% 20.2% 48% 22.1%
88 Torrens, Luis sea 940 -3 42% 20.5% 47.5% 13% 64.1% 52.4% 23.9% 41.9% 18.8%
89 Pérez, Michael nym 1,214 -3 44.2% 22.4% 45.5% 17% 54.8% 57.3% 32.1% 52.2% 21.7%
90 Contreras, William atl 1,629 -3 45.1% 18.8% 49.6% 23.8% 59.5% 64.5% 25.9% 43.6% 20.3%
91 Barnhart, Tucker det 2,550 -3 46.9% 16.7% 42.3% 21% 62% 66.4% 25% 52.3% 27.2%
92 Mejía, Francisco tb 1,959 -3 46.3% 19.4% 48.7% 20% 59.2% 61.5% 35.9% 52.3% 23.6%
93 Suzuki, Kurt ana 1,155 -4 42.4% 16.9% 46.3% 11.7% 63.8% 53.1% 24.6% 48.1% 20%
94 Ruiz, Keibert was 3,116 -4 45.8% 23.8% 50.9% 24.8% 68.2% 57.8% 34.3% 42.5% 15.6%
95 Stubbs, Garrett phi 988 -4 43.2% 15.8% 36.4% 17.9% 61.4% 52.2% 29.9% 52.2% 20.5%
96 Haase, Eric det 1,982 -6 44.8% 16.1% 44.1% 24.7% 64.3% 56.3% 31.9% 50% 16.5%
97 Adams, Riley was 1,280 -6 42.8% 20% 45.9% 25.3% 61% 59.1% 31.3% 40.8% 12.8%
98 Knizner, Andrew stl 2,403 -6 44.1% 17% 48.9% 23.4% 56.1% 67.3% 21.9% 40.9% 22%
99 Stallings, Jacob mia 2,945 -7 46% 16.3% 43.9% 18.5% 58.6% 58.6% 29.4% 54% 26.4%
100 Díaz, Elias col 2,932 -7 43.9% 26.8% 54.1% 15.4% 65.7% 51% 27.8% 40.7% 16.9%
101 Perez, Salvador kc 2,186 -8 43% 23.8% 53.4% 16.7% 64.2% 57.6% 25.3% 36.9% 15.4%
102 Nola, Austin sd 3,060 -10 46.4% 23.4% 45% 21.2% 59.6% 64.5% 29.1% 49.6% 22.2%
103 Melendez, MJ kc 2,094 -12 41.8% 13.4% 38.3% 11.6% 55.9% 59.8% 27.7% 45.4% 21.1%
104 Chirinos, Robinson bal 1,805 -14 40% 11.6% 41% 19% 50.8% 54.3% 32.6% 50.4% 16.9%