<
>

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.


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 Trevino, Jose nyy 2720 17 53.9% 20.6% 45.1% 19.7% 71.1% 69.1% 40.5% 62.3% 30.9%
2 Heim, Jonah tex 2924 12 51.6% 30.9% 58.8% 22.1% 65.9% 70.9% 36% 48.3% 26.9%
3 d'Arnaud, Travis atl 2813 10 48.9% 21.6% 43% 25% 65.5% 60.3% 37.6% 57.1% 24.9%
4 Kirk, Alejandro tor 1980 9 50.8% 24.1% 47% 14.5% 71.1% 60.6% 42.1% 58.5% 20.7%
5 Raleigh, Cal sea 2783 9 49.3% 22.1% 54.4% 24.7% 65.1% 62.5% 27.2% 57.3% 27.4%
6 Murphy, Sean oak 3269 8 49.6% 25.3% 48.3% 25.3% 61.4% 68.1% 29.7% 54.3% 31.2%
7 Molina, Yadier stl 2208 6 49.2% 28.5% 60.9% 35.5% 63.8% 65.8% 29.9% 43.7% 22.5%
8 Nido, Tomás nym 2391 5 50.4% 17.3% 50% 29.5% 58.3% 71.7% 31.4% 54.8% 32.9%
9 Zavala, Seby cws 1383 5 51.6% 19.8% 55.6% 30.1% 67.5% 68.4% 36.2% 55.2% 27.6%
10 Serven, Brian col 1564 5 50.2% 14.9% 60.2% 37.1% 59.2% 68% 34.3% 50.7% 26.4%
11 Narváez, Omar mil 2374 5 49.9% 16.8% 46.8% 21.4% 63.9% 67.4% 37.3% 55.2% 24.4%
12 Rutschman, Adley bal 2374 4 49.7% 28.8% 52.7% 32.5% 68.2% 62.8% 40.2% 55.3% 18.5%
13 Higashioka, Kyle nyy 1969 4 48.6% 11.5% 43.7% 14% 70.5% 58.6% 40.7% 59.4% 29.6%
14 Grandal, Yasmani cws 1710 4 47.9% 15.9% 59.3% 33.9% 62.7% 63.9% 20.2% 46.9% 22.3%
15 Kelly, Carson ari 2602 3 47.8% 19.3% 50.9% 19.3% 61.2% 58.5% 35.8% 52.9% 23.6%
16 Heineman, Tyler pit 1469 3 48% 15.2% 45.1% 22.2% 61.1% 64.8% 35.6% 56.6% 26.7%
17 McGuire, Reese bos 2101 3 46.8% 32.4% 54.7% 24.3% 68.4% 60.2% 23.2% 45.7% 20.2%
18 Jeffers, Ryan min 1543 2 48.1% 23.7% 56.5% 17.8% 64.3% 66.8% 26.9% 45.4% 28.5%
19 McCann, James nym 1408 2 48.1% 15.9% 53.9% 20.9% 48.8% 70.9% 25.4% 55% 27.7%
20 Garcia, Aramis cin 1071 2 49.4% 17.5% 49.6% 21.6% 71.6% 63.8% 46.2% 48.5% 23.7%
21 Barnes, Austin la 1527 2 49.7% 11.8% 41.1% 14.6% 57.3% 65.1% 37.3% 67.1% 35.3%
22 Delay, Jason pit 1447 2 48.6% 28.3% 49.4% 33.3% 55.7% 67.6% 28.9% 55.3% 26.7%
23 Plawecki, Kevin tex 1489 1 48.4% 22.2% 56.7% 33% 62.3% 66.4% 29.3% 47.3% 18.9%
24 Hedges, Austin cle 2588 1 48.9% 16.5% 46.4% 24.3% 66.6% 66.2% 34.9% 55.4% 28.1%
25 Caratini, Victor mil 2428 1 48.5% 15.2% 49.8% 20.5% 56.6% 69.9% 31.8% 52.9% 33%
26 Sánchez, Gary min 2282 1 47.2% 23.1% 51% 22% 60.4% 65.3% 27.8% 54.2% 24.3%
27 Vázquez, Christian hou 2913 1 47.9% 22.7% 55.8% 26.5% 63% 63.5% 29.7% 50.6% 22.9%
28 Herrera, Jose ari 1196 0 46.6% 26.8% 39.2% 25.3% 61.7% 70% 30.2% 40.6% 23.7%
29 Gomes, Yan chc 1993 0 46.6% 26.7% 56% 15.6% 66.7% 55% 31.7% 49.7% 15.8%
30 Contreras, Willson chc 2052 0 46.1% 20.3% 58.6% 22.4% 65.7% 55.5% 31.1% 42.9% 22.1%
31 Stassi, Max ana 2503 0 46.8% 24.9% 46.3% 20.8% 64.5% 58.4% 29.4% 54.7% 20%
32 Bethancourt, Christian tb 1303 0 47.2% 15.2% 46.4% 22.8% 62% 67.6% 27% 51% 21.3%
33 Wynns, Austin sf 1330 0 47.8% 14.9% 54.8% 31.1% 63% 65.2% 17.7% 48.4% 22.7%
34 Fortes, Nick mia 1520 -1 48.7% 22.4% 50.6% 30.9% 62% 65.1% 28.1% 53.4% 23.2%
35 Maldonado, Martín hou 3282 -1 47.9% 25.6% 53.3% 26.9% 66% 60.8% 30.6% 48.7% 20.4%
36 Jansen, Danny tor 1631 -1 46.7% 16.5% 50.8% 12% 67.8% 59.6% 36% 48.3% 19.2%
37 Maile, Luke cle 1585 -1 44.3% 20.4% 51% 21.3% 62.4% 62.2% 24.7% 39.1% 21.3%
38 Bart, Joey sf 2321 -1 47% 18.2% 54.6% 15.3% 57.4% 68.2% 27.8% 49% 26.8%
39 Realmuto, J.T. phi 4145 -1 48.1% 21.6% 43.6% 23.5% 66.5% 63.5% 33.1% 51.9% 23.6%
40 Alfaro, Jorge sd 1774 -2 46.7% 16.8% 48% 33.9% 53.8% 71.9% 20.2% 48% 22.1%
41 Smith, Will la 3027 -2 47.1% 19.4% 44.8% 21.5% 61.6% 67.9% 21.1% 52.1% 26.6%
42 Casali, Curt sea 1325 -2 46.6% 19.2% 43.2% 18.8% 59.7% 62.2% 22.5% 52.3% 25.9%
43 Stephenson, Tyler cin 1352 -2 45.2% 16.8% 44.1% 21.3% 62.2% 63.9% 29.9% 44.6% 26.2%
44 Romine, Austin cin 1196 -2 44.1% 18.9% 54% 21.4% 58.2% 63.9% 30.9% 43.4% 14.4%
45 Mejía, Francisco tb 1960 -3 46.3% 19.4% 48.7% 20% 59.1% 61.5% 35.9% 52.3% 23.6%
46 Barnhart, Tucker det 2562 -3 46.8% 16.7% 42.2% 20.8% 61.7% 66.3% 24.9% 52.3% 27.5%
47 Contreras, William atl 1629 -3 45.1% 18.8% 49.6% 23.8% 59.5% 64.5% 25.9% 43.6% 20.3%
48 Pérez, Michael nym 1218 -3 44.3% 22.2% 45.5% 17% 55.2% 57.3% 32.1% 52.4% 21.7%
49 Suzuki, Kurt ana 1156 -4 42.5% 16.9% 46.3% 11.7% 63.8% 53.4% 24.6% 48.1% 20%
50 Ruiz, Keibert was 3118 -4 45.7% 23.8% 50.9% 24.8% 68.1% 57.8% 34.3% 42.5% 15.6%
51 Stubbs, Garrett phi 990 -4 43.2% 15.5% 36.4% 17.9% 61.4% 52.5% 29.9% 52.2% 20.5%
52 Haase, Eric det 1987 -6 44.7% 16.1% 44.1% 24.7% 64.2% 56.4% 31.7% 50% 16.5%
53 Knizner, Andrew stl 2410 -6 44.1% 16.9% 49.2% 23.4% 56% 67.3% 21.9% 40.8% 21.9%
54 Adams, Riley was 1288 -6 42.9% 19.5% 46.2% 26.3% 60.4% 59.5% 31.3% 40.8% 12.8%
55 Díaz, Elias col 2934 -7 43.9% 26.8% 54.2% 15.4% 65.7% 51% 27.8% 40.7% 16.9%
56 Stallings, Jacob mia 2948 -7 46% 16.8% 43.9% 19.2% 58.6% 58.6% 29.4% 54% 26.7%
57 Perez, Salvador kc 2188 -8 43% 23.8% 53.4% 16.7% 64.2% 57.7% 25.3% 36.8% 15.4%
58 Nola, Austin sd 3071 -10 46.4% 24.2% 44.9% 21.2% 59.7% 64.4% 29.1% 49.5% 22.1%
59 Melendez, MJ kc 2094 -12 41.8% 13.4% 38.3% 11.6% 55.9% 59.8% 27.7% 45.4% 21.1%
60 Chirinos, Robinson bal 1807 -14 40% 11.6% 40.9% 19% 50.8% 54.3% 32.3% 50.4% 16.9%