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
▾
2024
▾
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
Díaz, Elias col 880 3 46.8% 27.2% 49.6% 34.8% 69.8% 59.6% 25.9% 39.9% 15.5%
Naylor, Bo cle 842 3 51.2% 21.5% 50.5% 19% 60.4% 73.7% 29.1% 57.2% 26%
Trevino, Jose nyy 609 3 53.5% 19% 43.2% 26.1% 64.4% 76% 39.1% 56.1% 42.9%
Raleigh, Cal sea 927 3 49% 16.4% 43.5% 25% 62.3% 72.8% 37% 50.3% 29.5%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 689 3 52.5% 14.5% 58.3% 14.3% 72.4% 67.6% 29.4% 55.6% 30.3%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 674 2 49.9% 15.2% 60.6% 17.1% 59.6% 67.1% 34% 50.5% 34.5%
Wells, Austin nyy 623 2 49.1% 12.2% 47.1% 26% 52.1% 70.1% 36.4% 58.9% 35%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 741 1 46.8% 13.3% 54.6% 23.5% 58.6% 72.9% 26.5% 49.3% 22.5%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 844 1 48.7% 11.1% 40.6% 18% 60.1% 66.7% 50.8% 56.7% 22.1%
Tromp, Chadwick atl 330 1 47.9% 15% 37.8% 25% 62.1% 82.4% 24% 41.8% 22.2%
Bailey, Patrick sf 770 1 49.5% 24.4% 45.5% 17.3% 62% 65.3% 35.3% 56.2% 31.7%
Rogers, Jake det 616 1 52.1% 27% 43.9% 23.1% 61.3% 58.9% 41.5% 65.4% 36.5%
Heim, Jonah tex 928 1 48.4% 18.4% 34.8% 30.6% 65.2% 73.2% 27.8% 49.3% 26.2%
Vázquez, Christian min 647 1 48.7% 15.2% 44% 28.3% 63.2% 76.3% 32.4% 46.2% 29.1%
Hedges, Austin cle 327 1 48.9% 14.3% 27.5% 15.4% 66.1% 64.2% 45.8% 54.1% 30.3%
Nido, Tomás nym 452 1 45.4% 7.1% 40.7% 19.2% 35.2% 82% 31% 52.3% 24.5%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 335 1 49% 11.8% 53.7% 13.3% 60.3% 66.2% 28% 56.3% 31.9%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 396 1 48.5% 16.7% 48.8% 19.4% 44.4% 73.8% 47.1% 50% 34.9%
Jansen, Danny tor 457 0 46.4% 16.7% 42.6% 8.7% 56.6% 69.8% 20% 45.9% 28.2%
McGuire, Reese bos 601 0 47.9% 18.9% 38.3% 21.1% 60% 62.2% 32.7% 62.7% 23.5%
Perez, Salvador kc 804 0 47.6% 12.3% 35.8% 9.7% 60.5% 68.2% 36.7% 56.6% 29.3%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 1047 0 44.3% 23.8% 49.6% 20.5% 64.6% 57.7% 22.6% 45.2% 20.7%
Amaya, Miguel chc 770 0 46.1% 25% 46.4% 18.4% 51.9% 66.4% 23.9% 56.5% 20.5%
Sánchez, Gary mil 281 0 43.1% 10% 37.5% 13.3% 64.3% 65.9% 18.2% 42.3% 26.5%
Knizner, Andrew tex 321 0 47.7% 16% 44.1% 10% 56.4% 68.3% 45.8% 56% 17.1%
Bart, Joey pit 472 0 44.3% 8.6% 28.1% 16% 48.6% 73.4% 23.8% 57.5% 27.1%
Caratini, Victor hou 426 0 42% 7.1% 44.9% 15.6% 54.7% 67.6% 25.7% 45.5% 18.9%
Fortes, Nick mia 860 0 46.7% 13.6% 24.5% 10.5% 60.7% 63.8% 35.1% 62.6% 25%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 786 0 45.5% 12% 56.4% 12.2% 58.9% 65.2% 17.6% 49.3% 17.1%
Murphy, Tom sf 302 0 45% 6.7% 40.6% 13.3% 55.6% 69.1% 35% 51.4% 13.5%
Smith, Will la 967 0 45.4% 10.4% 38.3% 33.3% 55.6% 65.6% 39.1% 56.6% 23.3%
Kelly, Carson det 561 0 50.1% 13.3% 50% 0% 67.2% 76% 37.5% 49.7% 19.7%
Pinto, René tb 441 0 44.7% 21.7% 52.4% 13.8% 55.8% 58.9% 35.3% 45.2% 29.3%
Herrera, Iván stl 663 0 44.9% 14.6% 28.4% 15.9% 67.6% 59% 27.3% 56.3% 33%
Langeliers, Shea oak 1009 0 45.1% 20.3% 49.6% 26.2% 62.4% 62.2% 28.4% 41.2% 19.4%
Fermin, Freddy kc 583 0 47.5% 14.9% 37.8% 17.4% 54.4% 62% 35.4% 72.1% 24.6%
Contreras, Willson stl 536 0 49.1% 8% 42.9% 17.2% 67.8% 63.7% 41.9% 55% 21.3%
Stallings, Jacob col 469 0 45% 9.1% 42.9% 15% 57.4% 74% 32.1% 36.8% 25.9%
Thaiss, Matt ana 271 0 48.3% 6.3% 48% 8.3% 68.3% 68.1% 45.5% 41.8% 21.1%
Zavala, Seby sea 268 0 47% 7.7% 51.4% 14.3% 55.9% 71.4% 25% 60.6% 12.9%
Barnes, Austin la 315 0 45.7% 10% 30.8% 0% 54.1% 76.8% 27.8% 52.9% 32.1%
Lee, Korey cws 660 -1 42.7% 9.8% 38.4% 6.9% 54.4% 64.1% 28.6% 54.9% 18.7%
Jeffers, Ryan min 602 -1 46% 25.6% 46.3% 18.8% 56.9% 59.1% 44.4% 55.8% 15.3%
Diaz, Yainer hou 930 -1 44.2% 14.3% 52.6% 32.3% 58.7% 59.5% 20% 40.7% 29.1%
McCann, James bal 555 -1 46.3% 25% 45.8% 21.6% 54.4% 60.2% 34.5% 63.5% 18.8%
Barnhart, Tucker ari 442 -1 39.8% 0% 34% 10% 55.3% 57.6% 18.4% 48.8% 16.7%
Adams, Riley was 624 -1 42.1% 4.9% 34.2% 2.9% 52.9% 56.9% 48.4% 51.7% 26.2%
Wong, Connor bos 670 -1 46% 10.9% 44.9% 12.1% 58.3% 69.9% 35.1% 52% 25.3%
Davis, Henry pit 580 -1 44.1% 9.7% 41.2% 25% 44.8% 73.9% 33.3% 56.6% 18.5%
McCann, Kyle oak 355 -1 43.4% 8.3% 35.9% 18.2% 50% 63.2% 33.3% 50% 24.4%
Stubbs, Garrett phi 286 -1 41.3% 16.7% 26.1% 0% 60.9% 51.1% 19% 56.3% 23.5%
Rutschman, Adley bal 717 -1 43.7% 22.9% 44% 28.1% 60.9% 59.5% 26.7% 45% 19.1%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 1012 -1 45.5% 15.4% 31% 12.1% 64.4% 67.7% 28.6% 50.7% 21.2%
Contreras, William mil 1095 -2 44.6% 14.1% 34.6% 22.7% 60.6% 59.3% 34.1% 54% 20.8%
Campusano, Luis sd 1006 -2 44% 17.6% 52.6% 23.1% 48.7% 67.4% 20.8% 47.2% 24.1%
Ruiz, Keibert was 580 -2 41.4% 3.7% 35.5% 14.3% 67.1% 61.1% 22.2% 42% 19.7%
Narváez, Omar nym 532 -2 41.7% 18.4% 41% 25% 51.5% 57.7% 25% 55.3% 14.3%
Gomes, Yan chc 539 -2 38.8% 18.2% 46% 12% 49.1% 61.7% 18.9% 38% 12.1%
Maldonado, Martín cws 724 -2 40.9% 14% 43.4% 23.1% 48.1% 66.7% 25.7% 36.3% 13.6%
Bethancourt, Christian mia 541 -2 42.9% 19.4% 39.8% 16.7% 61.2% 67% 22.5% 38.9% 15.9%
Maile, Luke cin 497 -2 38.4% 5.6% 47.3% 31.6% 45.7% 63.8% 19.4% 34.1% 7.7%