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
Mathis, Jeff ari 1726 12 55% 18% 31.7% 14.9% 59.8% 80.4% 40.2% 61% 49.1%
Grandal, Yasmani la 3405 11 50.7% 12.2% 35.8% 17.9% 61.7% 68.6% 35.3% 65.7% 36.6%
Stassi, Max hou 1974 10 51.9% 13.6% 50.2% 22.1% 67.9% 70.7% 35.6% 54.5% 33.3%
Zunino, Mike sea 2880 9 50.9% 17.5% 37.8% 24.2% 65.4% 66.7% 34% 60% 33%
Alfaro, Jorge phi 2874 9 50.7% 20.1% 48.8% 19.8% 73.2% 62.2% 33.3% 51% 26.4%
Flowers, Tyler atl 2144 9 50.7% 16.2% 41.6% 20% 65.4% 70.8% 40.3% 60.1% 29.6%
Wolters, Tony col 1588 8 52.1% 23.4% 39.6% 14.3% 67.4% 68% 45% 59% 37.9%
Gomes, Yan cle 2994 8 51.2% 17.9% 26.5% 12% 73.9% 65% 48.9% 55.9% 28.5%
Barnes, Austin la 1597 7 51.5% 5.1% 33.8% 6.5% 54.6% 77.8% 39.1% 61% 47.4%
Murphy, John Ryan ari 1492 7 51.7% 8.5% 33.6% 13.6% 64.9% 75.2% 38.8% 60.5% 43.3%
Iannetta, Chris col 2558 7 50.7% 20.5% 45.6% 15% 72.8% 71.7% 29.9% 41.9% 31.2%
León, Sandy bos 2440 6 51.2% 19.6% 55.6% 27.6% 71.6% 70.5% 29.8% 47.4% 22.8%
Avila, Alex ari 1607 6 51.8% 17.4% 41.4% 20% 71.3% 77.2% 38.7% 49.2% 34.7%
Realmuto, J.T. mia 3313 6 48.4% 11.8% 29.1% 7.2% 71.3% 61.5% 38.7% 54% 27%
Hedges, Austin sd 2492 6 49.9% 17.7% 47.9% 25.4% 63.7% 67.3% 36.7% 55.4% 30.8%
Maldonado, Martín hou 3433 5 49.1% 14.5% 39.7% 18.3% 60.3% 71.5% 32.5% 54.4% 34%
Kratz, Erik mil 1939 5 49.7% 22.7% 47% 25.8% 64.4% 70.3% 38.6% 51.3% 25.5%
Sánchez, Gary nyy 2420 4 50% 19% 36.5% 20.7% 74.3% 69.7% 32.6% 47.3% 28.2%
Pérez, Roberto cle 1553 4 50.4% 15.4% 38.2% 22.7% 60.6% 75.7% 35.1% 55.5% 27.6%
Maile, Luke tor 1842 4 50.5% 26.4% 48.6% 28.6% 71.6% 72.2% 27.8% 47.7% 32.9%
Romine, Austin nyy 2128 4 49.7% 21.1% 39.2% 21.5% 71.3% 65.4% 45.7% 48.1% 27.1%
Martin, Russell tor 2192 3 48.8% 17.8% 44.2% 28.5% 65.4% 70.9% 29.5% 50.9% 28.1%
Posey, Buster sf 2608 3 49.5% 16.6% 41.9% 18.5% 63.2% 71% 31.3% 52.6% 31.1%
Wilson, Bobby min 1246 3 50.6% 14% 34.1% 7.3% 69.7% 75.1% 34.4% 52.4% 34.1%
Vázquez, Christian bos 2349 3 48% 13.8% 41.9% 15.6% 62.4% 71.8% 31.3% 49.7% 32.7%
Holaday, Bryan mia 1211 2 49% 6.7% 17.9% 21% 61.3% 72.9% 40.8% 56% 37.3%
Caratini, Victor chc 1058 0 45.5% 14.6% 27.5% 13% 62.1% 66.1% 31.5% 45.3% 30.6%
Briceño, José ana 997 0 48% 25.4% 44.8% 36.5% 60.6% 74.5% 25.7% 41.5% 30.2%
Piña, Manny mil 2652 0 46.4% 11.8% 29.8% 17.3% 57.7% 69.2% 35.6% 51.2% 32.4%
McCann, James det 3403 -1 47.7% 20.7% 37.4% 17.5% 64.6% 68.1% 38.2% 49.5% 19.5%
Peña, Francisco stl 1055 -1 46.1% 16.7% 52.1% 12.8% 68.8% 63% 32.8% 40.2% 16.5%
Sisco, Chance bal 1216 -1 46.1% 14.3% 34.3% 23.6% 75.1% 61.2% 41.9% 42.2% 18.7%
Wynns, Austin bal 1030 -2 45.3% 24.6% 39.2% 19% 71.9% 53% 38.6% 42.5% 23.8%
Díaz, Elias pit 1820 -2 46.1% 15.2% 38.6% 19.4% 68.6% 65% 36.6% 44.7% 19.8%
McCann, Brian hou 1693 -2 46.4% 8.3% 18.4% 14% 68.2% 64.5% 42.4% 50.6% 25.2%
Smith, Kevan cws 1462 -2 45.8% 25.2% 58.6% 29.2% 70.8% 66.3% 26% 32.4% 14.4%
Suzuki, Kurt atl 2538 -2 46.2% 14.6% 40.9% 9.4% 65.3% 65% 32.7% 44.8% 26.5%
Severino, Pedro was 1657 -2 47.4% 12% 29.1% 13% 76.2% 58.1% 46.4% 55.7% 21.2%
Lucroy, Jonathan oak 3298 -2 46% 13.3% 32.9% 20% 64.7% 62.6% 29.7% 52.3% 27.6%
Plawecki, Kevin nym 2091 -3 45.4% 21.5% 41.3% 30.2% 55.3% 68.7% 23.7% 42.2% 23.1%
Kieboom, Spencer was 1193 -3 42.9% 16.7% 29% 15% 67.7% 61.9% 35% 42.4% 26.7%
Molina, Yadier stl 3551 -3 46.7% 20.2% 50.9% 20.7% 66.3% 62.7% 27.3% 45.3% 17.3%
Joseph, Caleb bal 2453 -3 45.7% 20.9% 39.5% 17.2% 66.1% 61.2% 36.1% 45.3% 21.7%
Knapp, Andrew phi 1223 -3 44.6% 16.2% 36% 15.6% 68.7% 57% 38.4% 45.3% 21.2%
Ramos, Wilson phi 2607 -3 46.1% 21.2% 50.1% 22.7% 70.4% 65.6% 28.1% 37.7% 17.8%
Sucre, Jesús tb 1553 -5 43.9% 13.3% 31.1% 7.4% 68.4% 53.7% 30.3% 52.6% 26.7%
Kiner-Falefa, Isiah tex 990 -5 40.8% 12.2% 32.7% 10.3% 62.6% 51.5% 24.7% 47.2% 17.9%
Wieters, Matt was 1732 -5 43.2% 26.2% 38.1% 8.8% 74.4% 55.4% 25.9% 37.7% 17.1%
Castillo, Welington cws 1317 -5 43.1% 16% 31% 8.6% 60.9% 66% 24.8% 45.9% 19.7%
Ellis, A.J. sd 1281 -6 41% 14.8% 39.6% 13.6% 68.1% 50.2% 25.9% 39.6% 12.1%
Hundley, Nick sf 2245 -6 45% 10.9% 42.2% 18.9% 59.3% 70.9% 24.3% 39% 22.4%
Butera, Drew col 1477 -7 43.5% 14.3% 30.9% 9.1% 68.2% 63.5% 34% 41.9% 22.9%
Garver, Mitch min 2368 -9 42% 13.4% 35.2% 24.3% 61.8% 67.2% 28.4% 33.7% 15.2%
Mesoraco, Devin nym 1931 -9 44.2% 14% 33.9% 11.1% 66.3% 63.4% 28.9% 48.7% 20.4%
Chirinos, Robinson tex 3255 -9 45.1% 9.2% 27% 15.3% 61.4% 64.9% 28.5% 51.4% 24.6%
Contreras, Willson chc 3902 -9 46.3% 12.4% 34.3% 19% 62.5% 67.4% 29.1% 45.9% 30.4%
Perez, Salvador kc 2926 -10 43.8% 17.3% 39.6% 20.5% 65.3% 59.3% 34.1% 39.5% 23.7%
Cervelli, Francisco pit 2736 -10 45.5% 18.1% 35% 12.6% 67.2% 63.9% 33% 48% 24.2%
Narváez, Omar cws 2218 -13 43.2% 20.7% 49.2% 21.5% 69.2% 57.7% 26.2% 35.9% 11.3%
Barnhart, Tucker cin 3459 -17 43.6% 14.4% 38.6% 14.3% 61.3% 57.9% 40.3% 47.8% 19%