Preview Matchup
Freeland vs. Pepiot
COL
8:10 PM
TB
Preview Matchup
Morton vs. Gausman
BAL
11:07 PM
TOR
Preview Matchup
Keller vs. Gillispie
PIT
11:10 PM
MIA
Preview Matchup
Houck vs. Leiter
BOS
12:05 AM
TEX
Preview Matchup
Megill vs. Brown
NYM
12:10 AM
HOU
Preview Matchup
Taillon vs. Kelly
CHC
1:40 AM
AZ
Preview Matchup
Springs vs. Castillo
ATH
1:40 AM
SEA
Preview Matchup
López vs. Cease
ATL
1:40 AM
SD
Preview Matchup
Flaherty vs. Yamamoto
DET
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
▾
2019
▾
Min Pitches Called: 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
1 Hedges, Austin sd 2682 16 53.9% 23.3% 47.8% 23.4% 64.2% 68.2% 44.1% 61.9% 39.9%
2 Flowers, Tyler atl 2254 15 53.1% 23.2% 54.2% 11.8% 64.9% 68.1% 35.1% 62.4% 35.4%
3 Grandal, Yasmani mil 3706 13 51% 19.8% 52% 31.7% 58.4% 72.5% 32.6% 55.7% 31.2%
4 Vázquez, Christian bos 3252 12 51.2% 24.6% 55.3% 28% 65.7% 70.8% 30.8% 47.2% 28%
5 Pérez, Roberto cle 3036 12 51.7% 16.4% 47.8% 23.2% 65.8% 71.3% 42.2% 56% 32.3%
6 McCann, Brian atl 2265 9 49.8% 23.4% 41.8% 16% 74.4% 64.3% 42.3% 48.7% 24.5%
7 Realmuto, J.T. phi 3727 8 50.4% 21% 38.4% 23.7% 74.7% 63.3% 40% 51% 27.1%
8 Stassi, Max ana 1207 7 53.8% 19.8% 43.3% 19.3% 65.4% 77.7% 31.5% 59.3% 38.3%
9 Posey, Buster sf 2673 7 51.4% 27.4% 46.3% 14.5% 74.2% 67.5% 35.9% 50% 24.6%
10 Martin, Russell la 1490 6 53.2% 24.6% 53.6% 22.2% 70.2% 75.2% 36.3% 49.8% 28%
11 Kelly, Carson ari 2593 5 52.3% 22.2% 45.1% 18.1% 69.7% 68.1% 38.7% 54.6% 37.1%
12 Piña, Manny mil 1184 4 52.1% 20.3% 50% 17% 61.2% 72.8% 49.4% 57% 30.9%
13 Murphy, Tom sea 1972 4 50.5% 14.6% 38.9% 12.2% 57.3% 66.4% 40.6% 64.5% 35.1%
14 Avila, Alex ari 1403 4 52.5% 14.1% 50.4% 20% 69.8% 68.2% 37.6% 55.8% 32.5%
15 Plawecki, Kevin cle 1279 4 53.6% 20.9% 45.4% 21.5% 63.9% 79.7% 30.9% 53.8% 27%
16 Jansen, Danny tor 2832 4 50.2% 23.1% 47.2% 22.2% 70.5% 64.8% 40.1% 53.9% 26.8%
17 Stallings, Jacob pit 1388 4 50.6% 18.1% 38.8% 10.9% 65.2% 68% 44.7% 52.5% 37%
18 León, Sandy bos 1578 3 52% 28.7% 63.4% 23.9% 68.3% 67.9% 24.7% 44.6% 17.5%
19 Barnhart, Tucker cin 2360 2 49% 10.6% 45.5% 23.7% 61.9% 68.9% 30.8% 58.1% 28.8%
20 Smith, Will la 1318 2 50.5% 29.5% 55.2% 18% 68.4% 66.3% 26.9% 48.6% 31.2%
21 Knapp, Andrew phi 973 2 51.7% 34.5% 62.3% 29.4% 72.7% 57.8% 34.2% 47.6% 25.3%
22 Caratini, Victor chc 1346 2 51% 28% 41.4% 21.5% 62.1% 74.1% 42.2% 53.8% 29.5%
23 Castro, Jason min 2067 2 49.9% 17% 43.7% 20.5% 65.5% 68.7% 33.1% 51.9% 32.1%
24 Nido, Tomás nym 1011 2 50.5% 16.7% 43.3% 22% 59.8% 77.5% 25.8% 48.4% 39.8%
25 Greiner, Grayson det 1629 1 47.6% 25.8% 40.1% 20.7% 64.2% 68.8% 30.5% 49.8% 19.6%
26 Barnes, Austin la 1560 1 51.6% 14.9% 36.2% 16.7% 61.5% 69.7% 36% 63.1% 45.4%
27 Gomes, Yan was 2811 1 47.7% 21.8% 38.1% 18.8% 70.5% 60.6% 37% 50.7% 18.7%
28 Gallagher, Cam kc 1127 1 48.7% 18.1% 30.4% 14% 72.1% 56.4% 55.8% 52.4% 24.8%
29 Molina, Yadier stl 3362 1 48.8% 27% 59.8% 25.6% 66.5% 67.8% 30.6% 43.1% 19.7%
30 Casali, Curt cin 1636 0 48.7% 7.5% 50.6% 22.2% 65.7% 67% 32.1% 50.7% 25.2%
31 Romine, Austin nyy 1846 0 48.7% 22.8% 46.2% 25.3% 71.1% 62.4% 37.9% 46.6% 21.3%
32 Trevino, Jose tex 1034 0 47.7% 25.3% 56.5% 23.7% 70.9% 63% 26.1% 41.5% 13.1%
33 Maldonado, Martín hou 3010 -1 48.2% 19% 43.5% 21.4% 62.5% 70.5% 25.3% 50.1% 28.4%
34 Rogers, Jake det 1060 -1 47.6% 12.7% 46.1% 10.2% 64% 64.3% 25% 56.2% 27.7%
35 Cervelli, Francisco atl 1021 -1 47.4% 26.9% 43.9% 10.8% 67.2% 60.1% 40% 47.7% 23%
36 Iannetta, Chris col 1240 -2 46.7% 23.4% 53.4% 30.2% 74.8% 60.6% 35.4% 33.6% 24.1%
37 Mathis, Jeff tex 2230 -2 47.7% 11.5% 37.7% 12.7% 59.2% 72% 30.8% 52.7% 31.7%
38 d'Arnaud, Travis tb 2228 -2 48.9% 22.4% 56.8% 27.6% 62.8% 62.9% 27% 50.6% 25.4%
39 Zunino, Mike tb 2026 -2 49.4% 21.9% 54.9% 24.5% 64.7% 69.6% 29.5% 52.9% 20.9%
40 Holaday, Bryan mia 1000 -3 43.8% 18.1% 36.7% 14.6% 58.3% 67.2% 33.8% 42% 22.5%
41 Lucroy, Jonathan chc 2271 -3 47.2% 12.1% 39.4% 18.8% 62.9% 68.3% 24.5% 50.1% 30.4%
42 Ramos, Wilson nym 3507 -3 46.8% 25.7% 58.8% 35.2% 63.3% 67.5% 22% 32.8% 16%
43 Hicks, John det 1712 -3 46.7% 20.8% 40.8% 26.2% 65.6% 65.9% 32.9% 45.1% 20.9%
44 Maile, Luke tor 1156 -3 46.8% 18.1% 47.4% 27.7% 61% 66% 41.3% 51.2% 21.4%
45 Vogt, Stephen sf 1407 -3 45.5% 15.5% 31.1% 22.2% 64.8% 63.7% 31.7% 50.2% 28.2%
46 Viloria, Meibrys kc 1222 -4 45.1% 22.1% 35.8% 25.4% 58.2% 67.6% 29.9% 48.5% 20.2%
47 Mejía, Francisco sd 1539 -4 47.3% 16.5% 36.5% 14% 61.9% 70.1% 33.3% 55.4% 28.7%
48 Garver, Mitch min 2210 -4 48.7% 13.3% 43.5% 13.6% 62.8% 64.1% 36.8% 58.4% 31%
49 Contreras, Willson chc 2874 -4 48.4% 22.9% 46.6% 21.6% 62.7% 70.1% 30.8% 47.6% 21.1%
50 Severino, Pedro bal 2524 -5 46.2% 19.9% 43.3% 20.3% 63.7% 61.4% 31.8% 48.5% 22.5%
51 Phegley, Josh oak 2663 -5 45.9% 18.8% 44% 18.8% 67.2% 59.6% 28.3% 43.8% 26.4%
52 Suzuki, Kurt was 2267 -5 46.7% 29.7% 46.2% 23.2% 67.6% 60.5% 33.5% 44.3% 18.1%
53 Sisco, Chance bal 1369 -5 44.3% 14.4% 40.4% 18.5% 67.1% 59.5% 34.3% 44.1% 18.5%
54 Wieters, Matt stl 1224 -6 43.2% 15.1% 49.1% 16.7% 68.8% 54.7% 26.2% 40.9% 19.1%
55 Sánchez, Gary nyy 2826 -6 47% 24.9% 44.4% 24.1% 64.7% 68.1% 23.2% 42.3% 29.7%
56 Narváez, Omar sea 2826 -6 46.6% 19.6% 42.7% 30.4% 58.8% 64.7% 33.2% 45.7% 27.3%
57 Alfaro, Jorge mia 3157 -6 47.4% 28.2% 48.3% 21.6% 66.1% 59.7% 35.8% 49.2% 19.6%
58 Kiner-Falefa, Isiah tex 1107 -6 42.6% 19.4% 37.6% 10.9% 65.3% 53.4% 20.3% 46.8% 20.8%
59 Smith, Kevan ana 1486 -7 42.9% 16.2% 52.1% 20% 64.3% 65% 16.8% 38.4% 15.5%
60 Wolters, Tony col 3055 -7 46% 15.7% 46.2% 16.3% 63.7% 65.9% 31.8% 46.9% 22.3%
61 Castillo, Welington cws 1400 -8 42.7% 9.2% 52.2% 16.9% 57.8% 65.6% 31.5% 38.3% 25%
62 Díaz, Elias pit 2549 -9 44.7% 20% 46.7% 24.8% 63.7% 61.6% 34% 38.8% 20%
63 Chirinos, Robinson hou 3448 -10 47.9% 18.6% 44.3% 14.7% 64.5% 65.5% 38.5% 50.7% 23.5%
64 McCann, James cws 2992 -15 44.9% 22.2% 51.1% 26.6% 65.8% 63.5% 20.1% 44% 13.9%