PHI0
1st
CHC0
Preview Matchup
Young vs. Mize
BAL
10:40 PM
DET
Preview Matchup
Senga vs. Irvin
NYM
10:45 PM
WSH
Preview Matchup
Berríos vs. Carrasco
TOR
11:05 PM
NYY
Preview Matchup
Houck vs. Lively
BOS
11:10 PM
CLE
Preview Matchup
Wesneski vs. Lugo
HOU
11:40 PM
KC
Preview Matchup
Hendricks vs. López
LAA
11:40 PM
MIN
Preview Matchup
Patrick vs. Liberatore
MIL
12:15 AM
STL
Preview Matchup
Abbott vs. Freeland
CIN
12:40 AM
COL
Preview Matchup
Baz vs. King
TB
1:40 AM
SD
Preview Matchup
Sale vs. Gallen
ATL
1:40 AM
AZ
Preview Matchup
Quantrill vs. Gilbert
MIA
1:40 AM
SEA
Preview Matchup
Burke vs. Severino
CWS
2:05 AM
ATH
Preview Matchup
Skenes vs. Yamamoto
PIT
2:10 AM
LAD
Preview Matchup
Eovaldi vs. Verlander
TEX
2:15 AM
SF
<
>

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
▾
2016
▾
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
1 Posey, Buster sf 3,481 31 53.2% 26.8% 43.7% 13.9% 79.9% 68.6% 38.9% 50.5% 24.7%
2 Grandal, Yasmani la 3,302 28 52.7% 28.6% 48.8% 23.2% 74.6% 71.8% 31.1% 47.2% 29.8%
3 Cervelli, Francisco pit 2,734 14 49.7% 15.4% 21.2% 2.9% 71.9% 56.3% 51.6% 57.7% 27.4%
4 Martin, Russell tor 3,716 14 47.9% 18.3% 37.8% 14.9% 79.8% 59.5% 42.7% 46.7% 18.3%
5 Castro, Jason hou 3,118 12 49% 22.8% 41.6% 18.5% 72.8% 68.4% 35.3% 43.5% 23.4%
6 Molina, Yadier stl 4,087 11 47% 19.5% 46.3% 11.8% 71.6% 61.8% 33.4% 43.9% 22%
7 Flowers, Tyler atl 2,242 9 50.5% 9.8% 29.8% 7.8% 76.8% 58.7% 49.4% 62.7% 29.3%
8 Pérez, Roberto cle 1,820 9 50.5% 23.3% 54.8% 20.2% 77.4% 66.7% 30.5% 40.9% 19.4%
9 Montero, Miguel chc 1,913 9 50.6% 17.3% 39.8% 18% 75.5% 60.8% 36.9% 55.2% 32.9%
10 d'Arnaud, Travis nym 2,096 8 51.4% 28.7% 39.2% 16.3% 77% 65.7% 38% 51.9% 26.4%
11 Wolters, Tony col 1,585 7 49.5% 14.6% 26.2% 11% 79.2% 59% 44.9% 58.5% 29.5%
12 Norris, Derek sd 3,431 7 46.6% 17.6% 37.8% 14.8% 80.2% 56.3% 42.5% 43.6% 18.4%
13 Rivera, René nym 1,569 6 50% 22.4% 40.8% 14.3% 72.4% 70.9% 40.9% 42.8% 25.9%
14 Mathis, Jeff mia 1,050 5 53.1% 14% 29.8% 8.3% 70.1% 66.5% 44.2% 58.3% 45.5%
15 Vázquez, Christian bos 1,461 4 48.1% 21.7% 32.3% 23.5% 71% 67% 31.3% 51.5% 25%
16 Lobaton, Jose was 1,008 4 51.4% 20.9% 31.8% 1.8% 77.4% 58.4% 53.4% 59.2% 31.4%
17 Casali, Curt tb 1,942 4 45.2% 30% 36.3% 16.3% 87.1% 54.6% 30.6% 36.6% 12%
18 Maldonado, Martín mil 1,938 4 48.8% 19.3% 33.8% 7.3% 78.8% 57.1% 49.4% 51.7% 23.4%
19 Zunino, Mike sea 1,407 3 48.3% 10.7% 36.4% 20% 67.6% 59.4% 39.3% 52.8% 28.1%
20 Ross, David chc 1,533 3 50% 15.3% 37.7% 5.3% 68.8% 72.1% 36.8% 44.1% 33.7%
21 Plawecki, Kevin nym 1,136 2 48.9% 17.1% 44.4% 6.5% 76.7% 63.4% 36.4% 55.9% 16.5%
22 Joseph, Caleb bal 1,244 2 47.1% 36.8% 47.6% 10.6% 80.5% 47.8% 33.6% 45.8% 15.4%
23 Ellis, A.J. phi 1,528 1 44.8% 21.2% 40.2% 10.6% 78.5% 58.7% 31.9% 35.6% 16%
24 Castillo, Welington ari 3,231 1 47.1% 13.3% 27.1% 6.5% 70.1% 57.5% 37.1% 48.5% 24.6%
25 Suzuki, Kurt min 2,821 1 46.9% 19.8% 44.6% 17.5% 73.8% 61.7% 32% 36.7% 17.8%
26 Bethancourt, Christian sd 1,107 1 46.8% 27.1% 37.4% 17.4% 78.9% 59.9% 35.6% 37.6% 22.4%
27 Ramos, Wilson was 3,543 1 45.6% 33.2% 52.8% 10.3% 82.1% 52% 34% 33.6% 11.4%
28 Contreras, Willson chc 1,671 1 48.2% 12.2% 32% 8.2% 72.1% 59.5% 44.8% 53.3% 30.2%
29 Thole, Josh tor 1,125 1 41.7% 18.7% 46.3% 17.4% 77.4% 53.7% 23.9% 34.2% 6.1%
30 Pérez, Carlos ana 2,283 1 47.4% 27% 43.4% 14.6% 72.9% 61.6% 30.8% 40.8% 19.6%
31 Gattis, Evan hou 1,474 1 49.8% 20.8% 50.3% 16.7% 76.5% 68.1% 31.8% 46.9% 17.2%
32 Gomes, Yan cle 1,935 0 44.3% 26.8% 33.9% 13% 81.8% 46.4% 39.4% 38.9% 20.6%
33 Fryer, Eric pit 1,023 0 45.7% 18.8% 23.8% 4.2% 75.6% 51.2% 35.1% 50.7% 25%
34 Butera, Drew kc 1,084 0 46.3% 17.3% 20.8% 12.5% 75.9% 60.6% 39.2% 51.3% 17.5%
35 Sánchez, Gary nyy 1,038 0 48.4% 12.7% 43.8% 6.4% 75.5% 64% 35.3% 40.4% 19.3%
36 McCann, Brian nyy 2,512 0 47.8% 11.6% 25% 6.5% 76% 53.8% 48.6% 52.1% 23.3%
37 Romine, Austin nyy 1,202 -1 46.3% 15.9% 33.6% 8.2% 82.3% 51.2% 49.5% 40.9% 13.3%
38 Conger, Hank tb 1,120 -1 43.8% 18.8% 41.3% 13.4% 75.3% 57.1% 32.9% 40.5% 19.4%
39 Brown, Trevor sf 1,247 -1 44.1% 14.3% 33.6% 2.2% 79% 56.2% 27.3% 39.5% 15.4%
40 Wilson, Bobby tb 2,079 -2 44.4% 19.1% 34.3% 8.9% 78.4% 54.4% 26.9% 46.3% 18.5%
41 Maile, Luke tb 1,031 -2 42.1% 23.2% 42.3% 12.7% 78.7% 53.7% 24.1% 34.6% 14%
42 Gimenez, Chris cle 1,303 -2 44.9% 11.6% 31.4% 12.1% 77.8% 58.7% 38.3% 43.9% 18.8%
43 Bandy, Jett ana 1,733 -2 45.3% 11.3% 42.9% 23% 67.8% 69.9% 29.6% 39.6% 19.8%
44 McCann, James det 2,650 -3 46% 31% 43.5% 23% 78.7% 61.1% 32.8% 31.1% 12.9%
45 Rupp, Cameron phi 3,101 -3 46.3% 19.7% 36.3% 13.4% 70.6% 56.8% 33.9% 49.3% 21.9%
46 Barnhart, Tucker cin 3,299 -4 44.7% 13.3% 18.4% 7.1% 71.5% 56.2% 40.2% 52.9% 24.9%
47 Avila, Alex cws 1,477 -5 41.6% 12.9% 28.7% 17.1% 69.6% 59.9% 24.6% 33.3% 18.8%
48 Hanigan, Ryan bos 994 -5 40.1% 19.1% 45.7% 20% 72.5% 47.1% 20.7% 34.2% 7.3%
49 Lucroy, Jonathan tex 3,752 -5 44.2% 13.7% 29.6% 6.1% 73.3% 52% 34.2% 48.7% 21.6%
50 Saltalamacchia, Jarrod det 1,804 -6 42.7% 22.9% 40.4% 22.4% 73.6% 61.7% 22.7% 23.1% 14.2%
51 Chirinos, Robinson tex 1,413 -6 40.5% 18.3% 35.2% 12.2% 69.1% 56.6% 22.2% 36.9% 16.8%
52 Holaday, Bryan bos 1,059 -6 39.8% 7.1% 29.8% 6% 74.9% 50% 29% 33.6% 26.9%
53 Hundley, Nick col 2,235 -7 42.5% 17.5% 32% 12.8% 70.2% 60.5% 29.9% 37% 18.2%
54 León, Sandy bos 2,020 -7 44.5% 22.6% 52.3% 23.2% 73.2% 57.9% 21.8% 32.8% 12.8%
55 Pierzynski, A.J. atl 1,839 -8 41.7% 13.2% 30.9% 9.8% 73% 55.8% 31.5% 40.8% 14.3%
56 Ruiz, Carlos la 1,740 -8 42.5% 16.9% 28.4% 8.2% 78.4% 43% 36.9% 42.3% 13.1%
57 Centeno, Juan min 1,466 -9 40.5% 10.9% 30.3% 6% 75.2% 47.7% 27.5% 32.1% 9.2%
58 Wieters, Matt bal 3,508 -10 43% 26.5% 35.8% 10.2% 83.4% 48.8% 36.8% 34.4% 11.4%
59 Navarro, Dioner tor 2,666 -10 43.4% 22.2% 43% 26.6% 66.9% 66.5% 19.2% 28.2% 13.4%
60 Realmuto, J.T. mia 3,818 -11 44.9% 14.8% 27.6% 4.6% 74.8% 51% 36.8% 46% 19.5%
61 Vogt, Stephen oak 3,084 -12 43.8% 15.3% 38.5% 13.5% 73.8% 57.8% 27.9% 36.5% 20.6%
62 Iannetta, Chris sea 2,718 -14 42% 13.6% 34.8% 8.3% 69.7% 56.6% 23.5% 39.2% 20.2%
63 Cabrera, Ramón cin 1,380 -16 35.8% 8.7% 20.5% 10.5% 62.6% 50% 42.9% 33.7% 15.6%
64 Perez, Salvador kc 3,854 -17 42.6% 21.1% 41.6% 17.3% 72.7% 57.5% 24.5% 32.6% 14.8%