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
▾
2020
▾
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
Narváez, Omar mil 967 5 53.6% 30.3% 53.1% 17.2% 65.9% 68.7% 44.7% 54.6% 40.3%
Vázquez, Christian bos 1,238 3 50.9% 22.9% 51.6% 32.3% 68.8% 67.5% 24.6% 53.3% 25.4%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 978 3 51.9% 24.2% 36.6% 17.6% 76.4% 67% 48.2% 50.8% 28.4%
Murphy, Sean oak 1,355 3 49.5% 21.3% 42.9% 10.1% 67.9% 67.3% 26.6% 56.7% 24.4%
Grandal, Yasmani cws 1,071 3 51.1% 27.4% 51.1% 18.4% 63.5% 68.4% 39.5% 57.6% 30.1%
Molina, Yadier stl 1,279 3 50.4% 14.3% 43.6% 11.4% 65.4% 73.9% 38.1% 61.1% 29.9%
McCann, James cws 812 2 51.6% 5% 35.9% 22.5% 63.1% 75.5% 38.1% 62% 31.3%
Bemboom, Anthony ana 500 2 48.4% 30% 36.7% 12.5% 64.9% 67.1% 33.3% 50% 30.8%
Caratini, Victor chc 610 2 53% 16.2% 59.5% 33.3% 63.1% 66.2% 48.5% 57.1% 24.2%
Barnes, Austin la 935 2 52.6% 20.8% 45.2% 16.7% 57.5% 73.8% 38% 64% 42.9%
Stallings, Jacob pit 1,225 2 48.8% 13.3% 36.8% 23.7% 60.1% 66.2% 29.9% 60.7% 33.3%
Contreras, Willson chc 1,079 2 51.3% 21.7% 50.5% 31.6% 65.5% 68.4% 39.2% 53.1% 28.1%
Pérez, Roberto cle 861 2 51.2% 6.3% 50% 19.2% 67.1% 72.1% 31.1% 53.9% 32.1%
Mathis, Jeff tex 688 1 49.6% 22.2% 54.5% 21.7% 62.2% 68.3% 33.3% 52.6% 25.7%
Casali, Curt cin 721 1 50.3% 15.3% 43.6% 25.6% 65% 69.2% 37.5% 60.9% 33%
Kelly, Carson ari 1,061 1 49.6% 20.7% 41.4% 23.3% 71.4% 64.5% 40% 52.7% 22.2%
Stassi, Max ana 782 1 50.5% 15.6% 51.2% 27% 59.2% 73% 31.4% 58.2% 35.1%
Barnhart, Tucker cin 993 1 50.4% 18.6% 43.6% 18.4% 69.9% 67.4% 31.4% 62.8% 26.6%
Vogt, Stephen ari 600 1 52% 38.7% 37.5% 26.7% 57.1% 68.8% 30.8% 61.4% 35.9%
Nottingham, Jacob mil 500 1 49.8% 15.2% 42.2% 26.3% 67.3% 67.9% 35.3% 56.4% 26.3%
Tromp, Chadwick sf 538 1 50.2% 19% 37.1% 17.4% 69.8% 62.8% 38.6% 56.4% 37.2%
Flowers, Tyler atl 598 1 49.2% 22.4% 51.6% 34.6% 63% 68.1% 33.3% 54.9% 21.7%
Jeffers, Ryan min 582 1 51.9% 21.9% 35.7% 9.5% 72% 62.5% 41.2% 58.2% 38.7%
Garneau, Dustin hou 427 1 48% 25% 41.5% 30.4% 78.6% 63.5% 44.8% 48.6% 10.8%
Higashioka, Kyle nyy 456 1 50.4% 17.1% 32.1% 18.8% 81.3% 71.7% 30% 55.6% 31.4%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 1,410 1 49.2% 18.2% 52.8% 30.6% 66.6% 65.4% 29.2% 49% 21%
Nola, Austin sd 1,440 1 51.7% 13.9% 39.3% 23.8% 59.7% 67.5% 34.6% 68% 40.4%
Hedges, Austin cle 736 0 49.5% 21.2% 45.9% 25% 60% 68.2% 29.7% 54.8% 32.9%
Castro, Jason sd 717 0 50.3% 30% 50.5% 14.3% 56.4% 68.6% 47.6% 55.2% 30.4%
Butera, Drew col 439 0 46.9% 20.6% 40.5% 18.8% 69.7% 53.6% 44% 58.8% 17.2%
Perez, Salvador kc 996 0 48.9% 17.9% 45.3% 14.5% 76.2% 71.8% 36.8% 43.5% 26.4%
León, Sandy cle 651 0 49.9% 15.4% 53% 27.1% 59.5% 67.2% 47.2% 60.7% 24.7%
Murphy, John Ryan pit 532 0 50.6% 12.2% 39% 16.7% 67.3% 68.1% 25% 62.2% 40.4%
Avila, Alex min 454 0 46.9% 23.3% 56.3% 21.7% 60.4% 63% 29.3% 51.5% 17.4%
Trevino, Jose tex 568 0 49.1% 19% 48.8% 28% 68.8% 58.9% 51.9% 53.3% 22%
Bart, Joey sf 841 0 49.3% 24% 38% 27.7% 62.5% 69.1% 40.4% 51.6% 37.7%
Garver, Mitch min 558 0 46.4% 14% 46.8% 18.5% 55% 58.4% 38.5% 54% 40.5%
Ramos, Wilson nym 1,114 0 44.8% 25% 58.6% 27.4% 66.2% 63.8% 22.4% 29.6% 15.7%
Díaz, Elias col 451 0 47.2% 23.5% 31.9% 21.4% 77.5% 56% 36.6% 44.2% 20.9%
Cervelli, Francisco mia 439 0 48.1% 23.8% 42.6% 6.3% 70.1% 67.4% 27.6% 46.6% 15.4%
Heineman, Tyler sf 408 0 50% 7.4% 41% 30.4% 71.2% 63.8% 46.7% 57.3% 18.8%
Wallach, Chad mia 518 -1 45.9% 17.9% 43.5% 15.8% 65.5% 60% 28.1% 55.5% 24.6%
Odom, Joseph sea 458 -1 43.4% 14.3% 53.5% 27.8% 54.3% 55.6% 15.6% 48.5% 30.4%
Romine, Austin det 1,068 -1 45.9% 11.7% 32.4% 20.5% 61.3% 67.4% 31.6% 47.2% 30.9%
Greiner, Grayson det 488 -1 46.3% 34.2% 68.3% 24% 54.3% 61% 25% 41.7% 8.3%
Chirinos, Robinson nym 780 -1 46.7% 22.6% 41.1% 20.8% 63.6% 70.4% 36.6% 39.4% 28.9%
Wolters, Tony col 1,000 -1 47.4% 21.6% 46.8% 22.9% 64.2% 66% 40.5% 47.6% 15.7%
Jansen, Danny tor 1,280 -1 46.3% 18.2% 37.9% 20% 64.9% 68% 26.9% 45.9% 32.3%
Gallagher, Cam kc 540 -1 49.3% 15.2% 41.4% 10% 68.3% 57.6% 40% 67.5% 22.4%
Knapp, Andrew phi 603 -1 44.9% 18.4% 42.4% 18.8% 60.2% 52.5% 41.2% 51.3% 25%
Gomes, Yan was 886 -2 44.8% 20.3% 37.4% 16.2% 67.3% 61.2% 38.4% 45.7% 16.2%
Pérez, Michael tb 729 -2 46.4% 18.6% 64.2% 24.3% 63.3% 57.1% 20% 45.9% 18.7%
Maldonado, Martín hou 1,828 -2 47.8% 19.4% 47% 23.5% 64.2% 68.2% 25% 54.3% 22%
Sánchez, Gary nyy 1,153 -2 47.6% 13% 32.3% 12.8% 64.3% 68.6% 24.7% 52.4% 42.7%
Torrens, Luis sea 610 -2 45.9% 20.5% 46.9% 19.4% 63.8% 56.2% 37.1% 49.6% 19%
Sisco, Chance bal 695 -3 46% 18.8% 31.6% 14.3% 68.3% 57.4% 32.7% 48.9% 21.2%
Alfaro, Jorge mia 744 -3 41.7% 14.7% 47.8% 18.6% 58.6% 56.2% 20.7% 45.1% 16.9%
Plawecki, Kevin bos 594 -3 43.3% 18.2% 49.4% 16.1% 62.6% 59% 31.6% 41.6% 19.7%
Severino, Pedro bal 994 -4 45.8% 24.6% 38.8% 16.3% 64.6% 64.6% 33.8% 45.2% 28.5%
Suzuki, Kurt was 879 -4 43.8% 22.6% 31.9% 12.1% 64.4% 64.6% 35.6% 43.5% 17.3%
Zunino, Mike tb 1,276 -5 45.4% 17.6% 49.2% 26.4% 60.2% 65.6% 22.2% 45.1% 19.7%
Smith, Will la 1,131 -5 43.9% 13.3% 50.4% 23.3% 62.3% 63% 33% 46.2% 22.5%