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
▾
2022
▾
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
Trevino, Jose nyy 2719 17 53.8% 20.6% 44.9% 19.7% 71.1% 69.1% 40.5% 62.3% 30.9%
Heim, Jonah tex 2921 12 51.6% 31% 58.8% 21.5% 65.9% 70.9% 36.2% 48.3% 26.9%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 2813 10 48.9% 21.6% 43% 25% 65.5% 60.3% 37.6% 57.1% 24.9%
Raleigh, Cal sea 2777 9 49.2% 21.9% 54.5% 24.3% 65.1% 62.5% 26.7% 57.3% 27.4%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 1978 9 50.8% 24.1% 47% 14.5% 71% 60.8% 42.1% 58.5% 20.7%
Murphy, Sean oak 3263 8 49.6% 25.3% 48.2% 24.9% 61.3% 68.1% 29.8% 54.3% 31.1%
Narváez, Omar mil 2370 6 49.9% 17% 47% 21.4% 63.9% 67.5% 37.3% 55.2% 24.4%
Molina, Yadier stl 2202 5 49.1% 28.5% 60.6% 35.5% 63.8% 65.8% 29.9% 43.3% 22.6%
Serven, Brian col 1564 5 50.2% 14.9% 60.2% 37.1% 59.2% 68% 34.3% 50.7% 26.4%
Nido, Tomás nym 2391 5 50.4% 17.3% 50% 29.5% 58.3% 71.7% 31.4% 54.8% 32.9%
Zavala, Seby cws 1380 4 51.5% 19% 55.6% 30.1% 67.3% 68.4% 36.2% 55.2% 27.2%
Grandal, Yasmani cws 1705 4 47.9% 15.9% 59.3% 34.2% 62.5% 64.2% 20.2% 46.7% 22.3%
Rutschman, Adley bal 2356 4 49.6% 28.4% 52.7% 31.4% 68.2% 62.6% 40.5% 55.2% 18.6%
Higashioka, Kyle nyy 1968 4 48.6% 11.5% 43.7% 14% 70.4% 58.6% 40.7% 59.4% 29.6%
Kelly, Carson ari 2595 3 47.7% 19.3% 51.1% 19.3% 61.1% 58.4% 35.8% 53% 23.6%
McGuire, Reese bos 2095 3 46.8% 32.4% 54.7% 24.3% 68.5% 60.2% 23.2% 45.7% 20.4%
Heineman, Tyler pit 1464 3 48% 15.2% 44.6% 21.3% 61.1% 65% 35.6% 56.8% 26.7%
McCann, James nym 1408 2 48.1% 15.9% 53.9% 20.9% 48.8% 70.9% 25.4% 55% 27.7%
Barnes, Austin la 1525 2 49.8% 11.8% 41.1% 14.6% 57.6% 65.1% 37.6% 67.1% 35.3%
Delay, Jason pit 1447 2 48.6% 28.3% 49.4% 33.3% 55.7% 67.6% 28.9% 55.3% 26.7%
Jeffers, Ryan min 1540 2 48.1% 23.7% 56.8% 17.8% 64.3% 66.8% 26.9% 45.3% 28.5%
Garcia, Aramis cin 1070 2 49.3% 17.5% 49.6% 21.6% 71.4% 63.8% 46.2% 48.5% 23.7%
Hedges, Austin cle 2585 1 48.9% 16.5% 46.5% 24.3% 66.5% 66.2% 34.9% 55.6% 28.1%
Caratini, Victor mil 2422 1 48.4% 15.2% 49.8% 20.5% 56.6% 69.7% 32.1% 52.9% 32.5%
Vázquez, Christian hou 2909 1 47.9% 22.7% 55.9% 26.5% 62.9% 63.7% 29.7% 50.5% 22.9%
Sanchez, Gary min 2278 1 47.2% 23.1% 51% 22% 60.4% 65.5% 28% 54.2% 23.8%
Plawecki, Kevin tex 1486 1 48.3% 22.2% 56.7% 33% 62.3% 66.2% 29.3% 47.1% 18.9%
Bethancourt, Christian tb 1297 0 47.1% 15.2% 46.4% 22.8% 61.8% 67.4% 27% 51.2% 21.3%
Herrera, Jose ari 1194 0 46.6% 26.8% 39.2% 25.3% 61.7% 70% 30.2% 40.6% 24.1%
Gomes, Yan chc 1993 0 46.6% 26.7% 56% 15.6% 66.7% 55% 31.7% 49.7% 15.8%
Stassi, Max ana 2498 0 46.8% 25% 46.3% 20.8% 64.4% 58.4% 29.5% 54.8% 20%
Wynns, Austin sf 1325 0 47.7% 14.9% 54.5% 31.1% 63.2% 65.2% 17.7% 48% 22%
Contreras, Willson chc 2048 0 46% 20.3% 58.6% 22.4% 65.6% 55.5% 31.3% 42.9% 22.1%
Jansen, Danny tor 1631 -1 46.7% 16.5% 50.8% 12% 67.8% 59.6% 36% 48.3% 19.2%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 4144 -1 48% 21.6% 43.6% 23.5% 66.4% 63.5% 33.1% 51.9% 23.6%
Fortes, Nick mia 1520 -1 48.7% 22.4% 50.6% 30.9% 62% 65.1% 28.1% 53.4% 23.2%
Bart, Joey sf 2313 -1 47% 18.2% 54.6% 15.3% 57.4% 68.2% 27.9% 48.9% 26.5%
Maldonado, Martín hou 3272 -1 47.9% 25.6% 53.6% 26.9% 65.9% 60.9% 30.8% 48.6% 20.4%
Maile, Luke cle 1575 -1 44.3% 20.4% 51.4% 21.3% 62.4% 62.6% 23.9% 38.8% 20.9%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 1352 -2 45.2% 16.8% 44.1% 21.3% 62.2% 63.9% 29.9% 44.6% 26.2%
Casali, Curt sea 1314 -2 46.5% 19.2% 42.9% 18.8% 59.6% 62.2% 22.5% 52.3% 25.7%
Alfaro, Jorge sd 1768 -2 46.7% 16.9% 47.6% 34.1% 53.8% 71.9% 20.2% 48% 22.1%
Smith, Will la 3027 -2 47.1% 19.4% 44.8% 21.5% 61.6% 67.9% 21.1% 52.1% 26.6%
Romine, Austin cin 1195 -2 44.1% 18.9% 54% 21.4% 58.2% 63.9% 30.9% 43.2% 14.4%
Mejía, Francisco tb 1959 -3 46.3% 19.4% 48.7% 20% 59.2% 61.5% 35.9% 52.3% 23.6%
Contreras, William atl 1629 -3 45.1% 18.8% 49.6% 23.8% 59.5% 64.5% 25.9% 43.6% 20.3%
Perez, Michael nym 1214 -3 44.2% 22.4% 45.5% 17% 54.8% 57.3% 32.1% 52.2% 21.7%
Barnhart, Tucker det 2550 -3 46.9% 16.7% 42.3% 21% 62% 66.4% 25% 52.3% 27.2%
Ruiz, Keibert was 3116 -4 45.8% 23.8% 50.9% 24.8% 68.2% 57.8% 34.3% 42.5% 15.6%
Stubbs, Garrett phi 988 -4 43.2% 15.8% 36.4% 17.9% 61.4% 52.2% 29.9% 52.2% 20.5%
Suzuki, Kurt ana 1155 -4 42.4% 16.9% 46.3% 11.7% 63.8% 53.1% 24.6% 48.1% 20%
Knizner, Andrew stl 2403 -6 44.1% 17% 48.9% 23.4% 56.1% 67.3% 21.9% 40.9% 22%
Adams, Riley was 1280 -6 42.8% 20% 45.9% 25.3% 61% 59.1% 31.3% 40.8% 12.8%
Haase, Eric det 1982 -6 44.8% 16.1% 44.1% 24.7% 64.3% 56.3% 31.9% 50% 16.5%
Díaz, Elias col 2932 -7 43.9% 26.8% 54.1% 15.4% 65.7% 51% 27.8% 40.7% 16.9%
Stallings, Jacob mia 2945 -7 46% 16.3% 43.9% 18.5% 58.6% 58.6% 29.4% 54% 26.4%
Perez, Salvador kc 2186 -8 43% 23.8% 53.4% 16.7% 64.2% 57.6% 25.3% 36.9% 15.4%
Nola, Austin sd 3060 -10 46.4% 23.4% 45% 21.2% 59.6% 64.5% 29.1% 49.6% 22.2%
Melendez, MJ kc 2094 -12 41.8% 13.4% 38.3% 11.6% 55.9% 59.8% 27.7% 45.4% 21.1%
Chirinos, Robinson bal 1805 -14 40% 11.6% 41% 19% 50.8% 54.3% 32.6% 50.4% 16.9%