PHI0
2nd
CHC0
Preview Matchup
Senga vs. Irvin
NYM
10:45 PM
WSH
Preview Matchup
Berríos vs. Carrasco
TOR
11:05 PM
NYY
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
Young vs. Mize
BAL
PPD
DET
Houck vs. Lively
BOS
PPD
CLE
<
>

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
▾
2025
▾
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 Bailey, Patrick sf 570 1 44.7% 20.9% 41.1% 24.3% 57.7% 56.9% 39.5% 48.8% 25.6%
2 Hedges, Austin cle 263 1 50.2% 28.6% 70.5% 14.3% 66.7% 63.6% 35.7% 36.7% 13.6%
3 Wells, Austin nyy 587 1 46.2% 9.1% 42.6% 23.9% 52.2% 70.6% 21.4% 55% 29.3%
4 Raleigh, Cal sea 564 1 43.3% 17.1% 52.7% 26.9% 59.6% 55.5% 20% 45.1% 23.6%
5 Contreras, William mil 669 1 44.4% 13.8% 39.8% 6.7% 61.5% 58.8% 24.1% 55.6% 13.5%
6 Senger, Hayden nym 286 1 52.4% 33.3% 50% 33.3% 54.2% 78.1% 21.1% 56.2% 25.9%
7 Escarra, J.C. nyy 189 1 55% 23.5% 66.7% 62.5% 51.5% 69.2% 25% 69% 37.5%
8 Langeliers, Shea ath 680 1 43.2% 11.6% 41.2% 13.5% 50% 62% 16.7% 42.7% 33.3%
9 Higashioka, Kyle tex 317 1 46.7% 27.3% 35.7% 11.1% 58.8% 67.4% 42.9% 52.2% 22.5%
10 Kirk, Alejandro tor 558 1 47.5% 15.6% 42.1% 12.5% 69.3% 48.9% 34.8% 58.1% 22.2%
11 Dingler, Dillon det 463 1 45.4% 15.8% 47.6% 10.5% 54.7% 63.3% 26.2% 52% 29.7%
12 Moreno, Gabriel ari 522 1 47.1% 13.8% 41.2% 16.7% 50.9% 56.4% 27.7% 62.8% 40%
13 Narváez, Carlos bos 557 1 46.1% 20% 52.7% 18.8% 63.7% 66.1% 25% 42.9% 13%
14 Naylor, Bo cle 488 1 47.7% 30.6% 44.7% 17.9% 80.8% 58% 27.3% 49.4% 13.2%
15 Perez, Salvador kc 439 1 47.2% 23.5% 48.1% 11.5% 70.2% 50.7% 39.3% 49.3% 16.7%
16 Heineman, Tyler tor 172 0 46.5% 20% 38.5% 25% 42.9% 73.5% 25% 58.1% 33.3%
17 Marchán, Rafael phi 170 0 47.1% 16.7% 29.4% 0% 61.3% 68.6% 11.1% 57.1% 31.3%
18 Caratini, Victor hou 202 0 41.1% 5.9% 46.9% 18.2% 54.3% 48.6% 30% 43.9% 36.8%
19 Kelly, Carson chc 382 0 40.6% 9.7% 44.2% 21.7% 51.6% 57.7% 7.1% 45.9% 17.1%
20 Maldonado, Martín sd 347 0 41.5% 20% 63.2% 26.3% 46.3% 64.6% 14.8% 28.3% 11.4%
21 Vázquez, Christian min 325 0 42.5% 20.8% 51.9% 20% 61.7% 55.7% 23.5% 38.9% 11.1%
22 Fortes, Nick mia 219 0 42.9% 18.5% 36.8% 0% 62.1% 68.4% 25% 46.6% 6.7%
23 Davis, Henry pit 157 0 36.9% 10% 27.8% 25% 40% 61.3% 20% 40% 26.3%
24 d'Arnaud, Travis ana 207 0 41.5% 9.1% 40% 14.3% 71.4% 64.1% 14.3% 40% 5%
25 Wynns, Austin cin 258 0 37.2% 16% 38.9% 25% 33.3% 70.4% 35.7% 31.1% 8%
26 Wong, Connor bos 162 0 48.8% 12.5% 55.6% 6.3% 50% 73.5% 33.3% 60% 35.3%
27 Trevino, Jose cin 422 0 41.7% 0% 38% 17.4% 44.8% 73.2% 7.1% 43.4% 23.7%
28 Rortvedt, Ben tb 275 0 36.7% 0% 38.3% 21.1% 29.3% 65.6% 28.6% 43.2% 15%
29 Rutschman, Adley bal 529 0 43.5% 20.6% 43.3% 30% 57.7% 53.9% 28.9% 47.3% 26.2%
30 Baldwin, Drake atl 286 0 46.9% 5.6% 54.5% 11.1% 55.6% 50% 36.8% 57.9% 31%
31 Sánchez, Gary bal 209 0 42.1% 15.4% 38.5% 0% 68.6% 54.5% 0% 61.4% 3.7%
32 Pozo, Yohel stl 154 0 42.2% 12.5% 48.3% 25% 69% 58.3% 20% 31.3% 11.1%
33 Haase, Eric mil 182 0 40.1% 21.7% 38.5% 11.1% 56.1% 60.7% 45.5% 32% 30%
34 Huff, Sam sf 252 0 42.9% 13.3% 46.9% 16.7% 55.3% 53.2% 35% 50.8% 18.5%
35 Barnes, Austin la 213 0 46.9% 0% 36.7% 0% 53.3% 71.9% 7.7% 68% 35%
36 Herrera, Iván stl 155 0 43.2% 0% 22.7% 0% 80% 57.6% 45.5% 56.7% 37.5%
37 Heim, Jonah tex 369 0 44.4% 4.3% 32.4% 26.1% 52.6% 61.4% 13% 64.2% 21.6%
38 Quero, Edgar cws 158 0 33.5% 0% 43.8% 40% 26.1% 50% 20% 50% 10.5%
39 Murphy, Sean atl 354 0 40.4% 8% 30.8% 28.6% 45.7% 65% 38.9% 43.8% 16.7%
40 Stallings, Jacob col 303 0 45.9% 16.7% 57.9% 16.7% 55.2% 56.1% 66.7% 43.4% 11.8%
41 Amaya, Miguel chc 422 0 42.4% 9.1% 35.4% 28.6% 48.4% 64.7% 18.2% 50% 7.4%
42 Fermin, Freddy kc 348 0 42.2% 16.1% 38.9% 17.4% 60.7% 60% 25% 38.3% 24%
43 Rogers, Jake det 153 0 48.4% 25% 50% 16.7% 55.2% 56.3% 35.7% 62.9% 26.7%
44 Herrera, Jose ari 246 0 43.9% 0% 42.9% 7.1% 52.2% 68.6% 33.3% 47.3% 28%
45 Torrens, Luis nym 462 0 41.3% 11.1% 35.6% 28% 42.3% 64.8% 14.3% 52.8% 16.4%
46 Garver, Mitch sea 216 0 34.7% 14.3% 25% 25% 39.5% 51% 33.3% 38% 0%
47 Díaz, Elias sd 347 -1 38.9% 27.3% 41.7% 23.8% 59.3% 47.3% 38.5% 36.4% 10.8%
48 Pagés, Pedro stl 455 -1 44% 35.5% 38.3% 8.3% 55.4% 58.6% 26.5% 51% 21.1%
49 Smith, Will la 564 -1 41.5% 9.1% 25.5% 16.7% 57.8% 50% 25.6% 52.7% 22.2%
50 Thaiss, Matt cws 367 -1 34.3% 6.3% 22.9% 11.8% 50.9% 61.2% 21.1% 40% 7.1%
51 Hicks, Liam mia 481 -1 39.7% 11.1% 45.8% 25% 33.7% 63.5% 28.6% 47% 22.9%
52 Diaz, Yainer hou 518 -1 35.9% 23.3% 36.4% 15.4% 45.1% 50.4% 15.4% 40.9% 13.3%
53 Jeffers, Ryan min 436 -1 40.6% 23.1% 50% 11.1% 57.1% 52.9% 38.5% 40% 15.1%
54 Jansen, Danny tb 447 -1 38.5% 13% 42.7% 10.3% 56.9% 57.7% 31.3% 32.1% 27.5%
55 Realmuto, J.T. phi 636 -1 42.9% 13.8% 40.8% 17.6% 62.8% 53.6% 15.6% 48.3% 16%
56 Ruiz, Keibert was 688 -1 39.4% 18.2% 39.6% 16% 48.3% 61.9% 26.9% 44.2% 15.2%
57 O'Hoppe, Logan ana 513 -1 39.2% 27% 47.8% 9.1% 53.8% 56.1% 23.3% 32% 10.3%
58 Goodman, Hunter col 355 -1 39.2% 12.5% 37.5% 14.3% 50% 58.4% 15.6% 46% 17.1%
59 Bart, Joey pit 459 -1 43.1% 3.2% 35.6% 19.2% 54.5% 70.5% 25% 46.2% 23.7%