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
Trevino, Jose nyy 1194 6 51.5% 21.7% 42.4% 16.4% 65.1% 75.8% 34.1% 54.6% 34.3%
Bailey, Patrick sf 1334 5 51.6% 24.7% 51.1% 27.2% 62.4% 70.1% 30.2% 55.7% 33.6%
Raleigh, Cal sea 1555 5 48.9% 20.9% 54.8% 25.5% 61.4% 69.1% 31.1% 46.2% 29.9%
Díaz, Elias col 1285 4 47.9% 29.4% 55.4% 33.3% 66.8% 64.7% 24.4% 41.1% 13.4%
Wells, Austin nyy 1073 4 49% 19% 45% 23.2% 51.9% 68.8% 40.4% 60.3% 32.4%
Vázquez, Christian min 1175 4 48.7% 10.2% 49.1% 31.4% 67.5% 72.8% 29.7% 45.2% 28%
Naylor, Bo cle 1258 4 50.7% 23.6% 50% 22.6% 62.5% 74.4% 31.4% 51.8% 23.6%
Hedges, Austin cle 556 3 51.4% 32.3% 45.3% 22.2% 59.4% 69.4% 35.9% 55% 31.3%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 972 3 51.6% 23.5% 55.2% 22.9% 70.4% 63.7% 32.4% 56% 28%
Grandal, Yasmani pit 774 3 49.4% 13% 46.4% 31.8% 48.8% 69.2% 41.5% 56.6% 37.3%
Rogers, Jake det 1024 3 51.3% 23.9% 48.7% 23.1% 60.6% 58.4% 41.2% 63.9% 31.7%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 740 2 48.4% 11.5% 51.6% 24.4% 58.5% 69.7% 44.4% 57.9% 24.5%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 1565 2 48.1% 16.8% 36.6% 19.8% 64.1% 66.8% 37.1% 57% 24.8%
Heim, Jonah tex 1619 2 47.7% 15.6% 37.1% 29% 65.7% 70.9% 33.3% 49.4% 21.7%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 1184 2 48.6% 15.6% 54.1% 19.7% 52.1% 71.6% 24.3% 52.5% 34.8%
Knizner, Andrew tex 517 2 51.1% 17.2% 49% 30% 55.1% 71.3% 47.4% 55.1% 18.8%
Barnes, Austin la 586 1 46.1% 10% 34.1% 12% 55% 72.4% 28.6% 53.8% 30%
Jackson, Alex tb 587 1 49.1% 5.6% 45.2% 22.2% 55.6% 69.2% 15.4% 63.5% 32.2%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 610 1 48.2% 14% 52.8% 16.3% 48.6% 71.1% 37% 52.6% 33.3%
Pagés, Pedro stl 466 1 45.3% 37% 40.9% 26.3% 69.5% 55% 31.3% 52% 12.5%
Tromp, Chadwick atl 473 1 46.5% 13.8% 46.4% 15.4% 59% 75% 21.6% 44.6% 22%
McGuire, Reese bos 946 1 49.6% 25% 43.1% 26.7% 56.5% 68.5% 32.9% 62.9% 27.8%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 1358 1 44.6% 16.8% 49% 28.9% 51.4% 69.2% 21.7% 48.9% 21.1%
Contreras, Willson stl 536 0 49.1% 8% 42.9% 17.2% 67.8% 63.7% 41.9% 55% 21.3%
Caratini, Victor hou 916 0 46% 20.3% 46.5% 16.7% 63.7% 68.2% 29.3% 46.3% 18.8%
Bart, Joey pit 570 0 43.9% 9.3% 28.8% 22.9% 47.2% 75% 21.7% 54% 29.3%
Nido, Tomás chc 776 0 45% 6% 41.6% 18.5% 37.5% 79.7% 25.6% 48.6% 24%
Kelly, Carson det 1036 0 48% 17.2% 41.3% 20.8% 65.4% 70.4% 34.7% 50.4% 25.4%
Herrera, Iván stl 1166 0 45.9% 16.7% 35.9% 12.7% 65.1% 62.3% 28.2% 54.7% 29.9%
Murphy, Sean atl 453 0 45.7% 3.8% 36.1% 26.3% 52.9% 71.3% 33.3% 47.4% 26.2%
Fermin, Freddy kc 1042 0 48.4% 12.9% 37.8% 27.5% 59.2% 62.7% 35.2% 67% 25.2%
Thaiss, Matt ana 483 0 44.9% 17.9% 47.3% 19.2% 60.7% 64.9% 30% 43.5% 11.4%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 1477 -1 46% 16.2% 33.5% 11.3% 62.1% 64.9% 34.7% 54.2% 20.4%
Amaya, Miguel chc 1517 -1 45.8% 20.9% 48.2% 16.9% 54.7% 64.3% 23.2% 53% 27.1%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 1749 -1 43.7% 24.8% 50.2% 21.7% 64.5% 55.9% 25.5% 41.8% 17.3%
Jansen, Danny tor 1068 -1 44.6% 18.8% 45.5% 11.5% 58.5% 66.4% 26.8% 42.9% 20.6%
Maldonado, Martín cws 1156 -1 43.1% 16.9% 43.8% 29.2% 52.7% 67.1% 22.8% 38.2% 19%
Lee, Korey cws 1253 -1 44.5% 10.1% 39.1% 13% 56.1% 65.8% 23.3% 53.9% 25%
McCann, Kyle oak 624 -1 44.1% 8% 40.8% 16.7% 49.6% 63.8% 31.7% 53.8% 25.4%
Davis, Henry pit 710 -1 43.2% 8.9% 43.4% 21.9% 47.8% 71% 29.5% 54% 17.9%
Fortes, Nick mia 1450 -1 46.3% 11.8% 32.9% 17.3% 53.9% 68.5% 34.1% 58.2% 27%
Sánchez, Gary mil 511 -1 43.4% 13.3% 40.3% 16.7% 64.9% 64.3% 24.3% 42.1% 20%
Perez, Salvador kc 1301 -1 47% 12.2% 39.6% 14.3% 58.4% 66.1% 37.8% 54.8% 26.9%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 1145 -1 46.3% 16% 51.8% 13.4% 57.2% 66.7% 22.4% 51.2% 19%
Jeffers, Ryan min 1023 -2 45.7% 27.6% 47.1% 17.5% 54.5% 58.5% 40% 54.1% 18.8%
Narváez, Omar nym 690 -2 42% 18.5% 39.8% 21.7% 52.6% 56.7% 24.4% 57.9% 14.5%
Ruiz, Keibert was 1265 -2 43.4% 17.9% 39% 21.2% 64.5% 63.3% 23.6% 42.7% 16.3%
Smith, Will la 1648 -2 44.7% 14.9% 39.7% 27.9% 54.3% 64.5% 34.1% 53.2% 21.2%
Adams, Riley was 750 -2 42.3% 7.8% 34% 8.5% 53.3% 59.8% 44.4% 50.6% 27.1%
Langeliers, Shea oak 1710 -2 43.8% 18.3% 51.2% 26.8% 57% 64.6% 24.1% 38.7% 18.1%
Barnhart, Tucker ari 666 -2 39.9% 0% 38.1% 11.6% 58.5% 55.6% 17% 46.7% 17.9%
Wong, Connor bos 1297 -2 45% 12.5% 45.4% 18.3% 60.3% 64.5% 35.4% 48.9% 18.2%
Bethancourt, Christian mia 813 -2 44.3% 18.8% 41.7% 24.4% 64.6% 71.2% 17.9% 40% 14.1%
Rutschman, Adley bal 1378 -2 46.2% 30% 53.1% 37.4% 60.8% 62.7% 28.2% 44.8% 13.6%
Stubbs, Garrett phi 554 -2 41.2% 13.9% 32.1% 4% 58.1% 53.7% 22.2% 53.5% 20.6%
Gomes, Yan chc 813 -3 40.6% 19.7% 45.9% 26.1% 52.2% 63.4% 20.5% 41.4% 8.3%
Contreras, William mil 1831 -3 45.3% 14.4% 37.5% 18.2% 59.8% 61% 34.3% 53.7% 23%
Maile, Luke cin 778 -3 39.3% 10.3% 46.8% 30.4% 47% 66.7% 18% 35.2% 10.7%
Stallings, Jacob col 1015 -3 44.3% 10.8% 46.1% 19% 54.1% 68.4% 33.3% 43.4% 28.6%
McCann, James bal 915 -3 43.7% 18.6% 45.5% 22.4% 47.2% 59.9% 29.8% 57.1% 19.7%
Campusano, Luis sd 1567 -4 44% 17.1% 50% 19.4% 45.8% 67.7% 24.2% 50.2% 25%
Diaz, Yainer hou 1439 -5 43.6% 19.8% 52.2% 31.4% 58.6% 61.6% 19.8% 36.8% 23%