Preview Matchup
Canning vs. Williams
NYM
8:05 PM
WSH
Preview Matchup
Ober vs. Williams
MIN
10:10 PM
CLE
Preview Matchup
Warren vs. Sugano
NYY
10:35 PM
BAL
Preview Matchup
Pallante vs. Martinez
STL
10:40 PM
CIN
Preview Matchup
Sears vs. Corbin
ATH
12:05 AM
TEX
Preview Matchup
Flaherty vs. Blanco
DET
12:10 AM
HOU
Preview Matchup
Elder vs. Feltner
ATL
12:40 AM
COL
Preview Matchup
Cabrera vs. May
MIA
2:10 AM
LAD
<
>

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: 250
▾


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 Bailey, Patrick sf 3,214 16 52.5% 23.3% 57.4% 28.4% 64.6% 70.5% 29.8% 54.8% 32.2%
2 Raleigh, Cal sea 3,404 13 49.1% 22.4% 55% 30% 60.9% 68.5% 30% 46.3% 28.4%
3 Wells, Austin nyy 3,111 12 48.6% 23% 49.3% 23.9% 58.1% 66% 31.5% 55.1% 29.3%
4 Kirk, Alejandro tor 2,586 10 49.8% 21.7% 50.7% 21.9% 67.3% 61.2% 34.6% 56.1% 28.8%
5 Trevino, Jose nyy 1,890 10 50.7% 22.3% 47.3% 19% 61% 74.4% 33.6% 52.4% 35.7%
6 Rogers, Jake det 2,525 9 51% 19.6% 52.6% 26.7% 61.7% 64.3% 35.5% 59% 30.1%
7 Naylor, Bo cle 3,105 8 49.3% 23.9% 48.4% 19.6% 66.9% 68.1% 34.8% 50.2% 22%
8 Alvarez, Francisco nym 2,754 6 46.7% 15.2% 48% 22.1% 52.3% 66.2% 35.7% 53.9% 28.4%
9 Hedges, Austin cle 1,464 6 50.8% 29.2% 53.1% 18.3% 62.2% 69.8% 30.6% 54.6% 24.8%
10 Grandal, Yasmani pit 1,843 6 48.8% 12.3% 48.8% 29% 47.5% 70.6% 34.4% 52.1% 37.6%
11 Vázquez, Christian min 2,306 6 49.1% 17.4% 53.5% 29.6% 63.8% 72.8% 27.9% 44.7% 27.7%
12 Jackson, Alex tb 1,297 4 50.9% 11.3% 53.7% 26.2% 55.6% 71.6% 17% 58.2% 29.6%
13 Caratini, Victor hou 1,581 3 49.1% 19.6% 52.2% 29.6% 65.4% 68.6% 30% 48% 24.1%
14 Murphy, Sean atl 1,950 2 47.3% 13% 44.3% 22% 55.2% 69.4% 30.6% 54.9% 23%
15 McGuire, Reese bos 1,201 2 50.3% 24.4% 44.9% 26.2% 61% 66.5% 33.3% 63.1% 27.1%
16 Herrera, Jose ari 984 2 48.5% 14.9% 52.9% 28.3% 58.5% 65.2% 30.6% 46.6% 30%
17 Knizner, Andrew tex 764 2 49.2% 16.7% 43.2% 20% 60% 66.7% 48.1% 52.9% 20.3%
18 Rortvedt, Ben tb 2,445 2 46.8% 12.5% 52.6% 20.7% 54.8% 68% 27.3% 48.6% 31.5%
19 Moreno, Gabriel ari 2,436 2 47.4% 17.9% 37.1% 16% 60.7% 65.5% 36.4% 59% 21.9%
20 Díaz, Elias sd 2,138 2 46.9% 31.4% 57.5% 32.4% 66.3% 61.6% 22.2% 37% 14%
21 Haase, Eric mil 547 1 47.9% 11.8% 45.3% 41.2% 53.9% 65.3% 35.7% 52.4% 23.9%
22 Driscoll, Logan tb 250 1 52.8% 27.8% 66.7% 46.2% 60% 65% 30% 50% 22.7%
23 Robinson, Chuckie cws 704 1 47.4% 12.7% 60.4% 30.3% 61.9% 62% 36% 41.5% 27.7%
24 Higashioka, Kyle sd 2,383 1 47.5% 18.1% 47.7% 23.5% 59% 66.3% 31.4% 54% 23.4%
25 Fry, David cle 412 1 47.1% 10.8% 37.3% 21.4% 71.8% 64.9% 45.5% 43.2% 32.4%
26 Pagés, Pedro stl 1,779 1 45.8% 23.1% 48.6% 17.1% 63% 61.5% 29% 46.9% 18.2%
27 Herrera, Iván stl 1,551 1 47.5% 17.3% 42.6% 14% 63.8% 62.5% 34% 55.7% 27.9%
28 Torrens, Luis nym 1,019 1 48.9% 19.2% 53.8% 10.3% 63.3% 66.8% 30.6% 53.4% 26.2%
29 Romo, Drew col 379 1 47.5% 27.8% 48.8% 15% 56.6% 67.7% 33.3% 47.7% 27.8%
30 Tromp, Chadwick atl 473 1 46.5% 13.8% 46.4% 15.4% 59% 75% 21.6% 44.6% 22%
31 Kelly, Carson tex 2,161 1 48.5% 15.6% 40.8% 31.8% 64.1% 68.9% 35.2% 52.2% 26%
32 Contreras, William mil 3,609 0 48% 15.3% 43.8% 25.6% 59.4% 67% 34.9% 54.1% 28%
33 Barnes, Austin la 1,158 0 45% 12.1% 39.4% 10.7% 58.4% 66.7% 21.1% 52.2% 31.5%
34 Millas, Drew was 439 0 45.3% 16.7% 40.7% 23.5% 56.4% 73.7% 12.5% 40.5% 30.8%
35 Pereda, Jhonny mia 355 0 45.9% 30.4% 64.6% 7.7% 53.6% 70.7% 44% 36.4% 20.7%
36 Zavala, Seby sea 371 0 48% 14.3% 50% 18.8% 60.4% 67.2% 30.3% 62.2% 13.6%
37 Dingler, Dillon det 676 0 47.8% 12.5% 32.4% 33.3% 42.6% 77.5% 36.4% 64.1% 27%
38 Marchán, Rafael phi 410 0 43.7% 3.2% 42.1% 11.1% 63.2% 57.1% 37% 47.6% 36.6%
39 Goodman, Hunter col 585 0 44.8% 23.1% 44.6% 27.9% 59.6% 68.9% 16.3% 42.1% 16%
40 Nido, Tomás chc 1,184 0 45.7% 11.3% 48% 24.4% 42.3% 77.1% 28.4% 45.2% 25.2%
41 d'Arnaud, Travis atl 2,235 0 47.2% 21.7% 51.9% 20.3% 59% 64.5% 28.6% 51.1% 19.4%
42 Stephenson, Tyler cin 3,344 -1 44.5% 20.3% 51.9% 32.3% 55.1% 67.6% 20.9% 43.3% 18.2%
43 Fermin, Freddy kc 2,232 -1 47.8% 13.9% 38.5% 19.1% 57.2% 67.3% 27% 63.9% 26.8%
44 Sánchez, Ali mia 817 -1 44.2% 13.3% 50.8% 25.8% 58.4% 61.3% 25% 45.2% 23.5%
45 O'Hoppe, Logan ana 3,475 -1 44.8% 24.8% 48.3% 22.2% 61.8% 57.4% 32.7% 46% 19.5%
46 Ruiz, Keibert was 3,129 -1 45% 19.2% 45.7% 25.3% 61.2% 66.8% 22% 44.2% 20.6%
47 Pinto, René tb 441 -1 44.7% 21.7% 52.4% 13.8% 55.8% 58.9% 35.3% 45.2% 29.3%
48 Fortes, Nick mia 2,922 -1 46.4% 22.2% 41.7% 20.8% 57.1% 64.3% 32.5% 52.8% 26%
49 Serven, Brian tor 534 -1 45.3% 29.5% 51.6% 29% 52.3% 65.3% 31% 40.6% 25%
50 Murphy, Tom sf 302 -1 45% 6.7% 40.6% 13.3% 55.6% 69.1% 35% 51.4% 13.5%
51 Sánchez, Gary mil 844 -1 46% 20.8% 45.7% 20% 63% 69.8% 24.1% 46.4% 20.2%
52 Del Castillo, Adrian ari 608 -1 46.1% 20.6% 47.5% 17.4% 61.7% 61.1% 38% 47.5% 23.8%
53 Heim, Jonah tex 3,130 -1 47% 22% 42.6% 29.3% 61.5% 66.3% 29% 48% 21.5%
54 Contreras, Willson stl 1,392 -2 44.1% 12.8% 52.6% 19.8% 62.3% 59.2% 30.1% 45.3% 18.5%
55 Stubbs, Garrett phi 1,362 -2 43.8% 11.8% 35.5% 8.8% 55.6% 61.4% 26.8% 52.9% 25%
56 Bart, Joey pit 1,862 -2 43.6% 8.8% 38.7% 32.3% 48.2% 69.1% 19.8% 49.8% 27.1%
57 Perez, Salvador kc 2,796 -2 46.9% 16.9% 45.7% 17.9% 59% 64.9% 37.4% 50.9% 25%
58 Barnhart, Tucker ari 794 -2 41.1% 0% 39.1% 10.9% 56.8% 56.8% 17.5% 47.9% 21.1%
59 Garver, Mitch sea 577 -2 41.2% 19.2% 54.5% 9.4% 57% 64.2% 12.1% 38.4% 16.7%
60 Casali, Curt sf 1,166 -2 47.2% 25% 48.1% 22.4% 61.8% 64.5% 29.6% 52.9% 15.7%
61 Davis, Henry pit 875 -2 42.7% 11.3% 44.5% 25.7% 45.6% 70.2% 25% 50% 20.7%
62 Narváez, Omar nym 690 -2 42% 18.5% 39.8% 21.7% 52.6% 56.7% 24.4% 57.9% 14.5%
63 Rutschman, Adley bal 2,996 -3 46% 33.2% 54% 33.3% 62% 65% 26.2% 38.5% 13.8%
64 Maldonado, Martín cws 1,353 -3 42.4% 15.4% 43% 26.7% 53% 67% 20.5% 37.6% 19.9%
65 McCann, Kyle oak 1,113 -3 44.9% 13.6% 42.6% 21.3% 55.6% 66% 32.8% 46.3% 22.7%
66 Thaiss, Matt ana 1,154 -3 42.4% 23.4% 44.4% 19.3% 57.5% 58.8% 25% 44.1% 14.4%
67 Jansen, Danny bos 2,175 -3 43.5% 20.6% 47.7% 16.5% 59.8% 63.7% 27.5% 38.9% 20.3%
68 Realmuto, J.T. phi 2,966 -3 45.2% 12.6% 37.8% 12.5% 62.2% 62.3% 34% 52.3% 19.7%
69 Adams, Riley was 1,100 -4 41.5% 6.8% 41.3% 11.5% 53% 57.6% 35.6% 50% 26.8%
70 Maile, Luke cin 1,248 -4 40.6% 9.8% 52.3% 28.2% 48% 69.6% 15.8% 35.6% 11.3%
71 Gomes, Yan chc 813 -4 40.6% 19.7% 45.9% 26.1% 52.2% 63.4% 20.5% 41.4% 8.3%
72 Bethancourt, Christian chc 1,338 -4 45.3% 20.9% 45.2% 29% 65.7% 68.2% 25% 41.8% 13.3%
73 Langeliers, Shea oak 3,680 -5 43.9% 18.8% 50.4% 25% 59.4% 66.4% 19.7% 39.1% 18.3%
74 Amaya, Miguel chc 3,091 -5 45.9% 27.3% 52.5% 22.1% 55.8% 62.2% 27.4% 48.9% 23.4%
75 McCann, James bal 1,814 -5 44.8% 25% 49.6% 26% 54% 58.6% 27.2% 52.6% 19.4%
76 Jeffers, Ryan min 2,280 -7 44.6% 19.2% 50.5% 19.2% 55.7% 59.5% 31% 52% 15.6%
77 Stallings, Jacob col 2,144 -7 42.7% 13.6% 46% 18.5% 57.1% 65% 24.4% 42.1% 24.2%
78 Wong, Connor bos 2,868 -7 45.5% 12.1% 46.4% 20.2% 55.2% 68.5% 32.8% 48.9% 19.5%
79 Diaz, Yainer hou 3,083 -7 45.2% 19.4% 54.4% 26.6% 61.6% 62.7% 23% 40.8% 22.4%
80 Lee, Korey cws 2,990 -7 43% 18.9% 45.5% 13.7% 60.2% 60.6% 23.2% 48.6% 19.3%
81 Campusano, Luis sd 2,130 -8 44% 17.7% 49.7% 20.7% 46.7% 69.1% 25.2% 48% 24.4%
82 Smith, Will la 3,913 -10 43.6% 18.4% 46.9% 19.7% 58% 61.7% 29.7% 46.9% 19.8%