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
Bailey, Patrick sf 2025 9 52% 24.2% 53% 28.5% 62.6% 70.3% 29.7% 57.2% 32%
Raleigh, Cal sea 2092 8 49.3% 19.1% 56.1% 29.1% 61.7% 68.6% 31.5% 46.6% 27.3%
Trevino, Jose nyy 1442 8 51.8% 23.5% 45.6% 19.2% 64.9% 75.3% 33.3% 54.1% 33.5%
Rogers, Jake det 1426 6 51.1% 19.8% 48.2% 25% 61.7% 60.2% 40.5% 62% 34%
Naylor, Bo cle 1829 6 50.7% 24.3% 41.8% 21.6% 65.4% 71.1% 35% 55.4% 23.5%
Wells, Austin nyy 1551 6 48.9% 19.1% 43.3% 23.4% 58.4% 69.4% 37.6% 57.3% 32%
Vázquez, Christian min 1468 5 49.3% 13.6% 51.1% 30.3% 68.8% 72.3% 29.9% 44.2% 26.8%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 1443 5 50.4% 19% 54% 23.2% 68.9% 62.4% 36% 55.1% 26.5%
Grandal, Yasmani pit 1113 5 50.2% 14.3% 49% 29.7% 48.6% 71.2% 38.9% 54.4% 40%
Hedges, Austin cle 786 4 53.1% 33.3% 47.9% 22.9% 56.7% 72.8% 35% 60.3% 35.2%
Díaz, Elias col 1609 4 47.5% 29.3% 57.5% 35.5% 67.7% 63.7% 21.7% 39.5% 13%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 1606 3 49% 13.9% 52.3% 20% 56.4% 71.8% 29.3% 51.1% 32.4%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 1218 3 47.8% 15.5% 46% 20.6% 60.1% 68.2% 37% 58% 23.4%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 1241 3 47.8% 15.3% 47.1% 17.5% 50.8% 69.5% 31% 55.1% 34.5%
McGuire, Reese bos 1194 2 50.1% 24.4% 43.8% 26.2% 61% 66.3% 33.3% 63% 26.8%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 1970 2 47.3% 17.9% 37.9% 18.3% 61.9% 65.3% 37.6% 56.3% 23.5%
Jackson, Alex tb 896 2 50.2% 9.3% 50.3% 26.4% 54.8% 71.1% 16.2% 61.4% 30.1%
Knizner, Andrew tex 729 2 48.8% 15.8% 43.5% 21.4% 59.1% 67.1% 47.2% 52.5% 17.3%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 1877 2 44.2% 18.3% 50.9% 31.1% 51.3% 69% 22.3% 46.2% 18.7%
Kelly, Carson det 1440 1 48.4% 17% 39.3% 25% 66.7% 70.5% 36.2% 49.5% 28.7%
Murphy, Sean atl 937 1 47.2% 14% 40.2% 30.8% 54.5% 70.5% 36.1% 54.1% 20.4%
Nido, Tomás chc 1184 1 45.7% 11.3% 48% 24.4% 42.3% 77.1% 28.4% 45.2% 25.2%
Caratini, Victor hou 947 0 46.3% 20% 47.7% 16.1% 63.4% 68.5% 29.8% 46.3% 20.2%
Bart, Joey pit 965 0 44.5% 10% 32.5% 32.1% 48.4% 71.4% 17.4% 50.9% 30.2%
Amaya, Miguel chc 1945 0 46.9% 24.3% 50.8% 20.4% 55.1% 64% 28.9% 53.5% 25.7%
Perez, Salvador kc 1745 0 47.4% 15.4% 41.8% 18.4% 58.7% 67.2% 38.8% 52.9% 26.8%
Barnes, Austin la 800 0 45% 13.8% 38.3% 9.3% 55.2% 67.9% 20.9% 53.1% 34.2%
Pagés, Pedro stl 891 0 43.9% 28.8% 42.9% 19.5% 63.7% 57.1% 24.6% 50% 13.4%
Fermin, Freddy kc 1366 0 48% 12.5% 36.2% 25% 59.1% 62.9% 31.5% 67.5% 27.4%
Contreras, Willson stl 912 -1 45.7% 6.3% 45.9% 16.7% 62.5% 63.5% 35.3% 49.5% 21.4%
Ruiz, Keibert was 1832 -1 44.5% 20.6% 43.9% 25% 62.8% 65.8% 24.2% 42.5% 15.6%
Davis, Henry pit 710 -1 43.2% 8.9% 43.4% 21.9% 47.8% 71% 29.5% 54% 17.9%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 1463 -1 46.7% 18.9% 52.3% 15.4% 58.3% 64.5% 27.2% 50.9% 20.6%
Herrera, Iván stl 1166 -1 45.9% 16.7% 35.9% 12.7% 65.1% 62.3% 28.2% 54.7% 29.9%
Thaiss, Matt ana 637 -1 42.2% 19.5% 40.6% 15.2% 61.6% 62.2% 29.4% 40.4% 10.7%
Jansen, Danny tor 1431 -1 44.2% 17.1% 49% 14.3% 59.4% 65.5% 24.8% 42.5% 20.7%
Heim, Jonah tex 2105 -1 46.6% 14.9% 37.3% 29.1% 63.3% 68.4% 30.2% 49% 21.9%
Fortes, Nick mia 1930 -1 46.7% 15.4% 38.7% 16.3% 55.8% 68.2% 35.1% 55.1% 27.8%
McCann, Kyle oak 808 -1 44.4% 8.5% 43.4% 18.8% 52% 62.9% 34.6% 50.7% 22.2%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 1575 -1 46.1% 16.7% 33.9% 10.7% 62.1% 64% 35.8% 53.2% 20.8%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 2394 -1 43.9% 24.6% 47.1% 23.6% 62% 57.1% 28.6% 43.1% 19.7%
Narváez, Omar nym 690 -2 42% 18.5% 39.8% 21.7% 52.6% 56.7% 24.4% 57.9% 14.5%
Barnhart, Tucker ari 794 -2 41.1% 0% 39.1% 10.9% 56.8% 56.8% 17.5% 47.9% 21.1%
Maldonado, Martín cws 1353 -2 42.4% 15.4% 43% 26.7% 53% 67% 20.5% 37.6% 19.9%
Contreras, William mil 2354 -2 46.4% 16.8% 41.5% 25.2% 58.3% 62.9% 34.3% 53.3% 24.2%
Stubbs, Garrett phi 989 -3 42.6% 10.9% 34.9% 8.7% 57.1% 61% 27% 49.6% 23.7%
Gomes, Yan chc 813 -3 40.6% 19.7% 45.9% 26.1% 52.2% 63.4% 20.5% 41.4% 8.3%
Maile, Luke cin 956 -3 40.1% 11.9% 48.5% 26.9% 48.1% 68.6% 15.5% 35.3% 10.5%
Lee, Korey cws 1799 -3 43.5% 17.3% 40.8% 14.4% 54.4% 65.2% 22.6% 51.1% 21.9%
Rutschman, Adley bal 1871 -3 45.8% 30.5% 52.8% 36.1% 59.7% 63% 27.9% 42.2% 12.8%
Bethancourt, Christian mia 813 -3 44.3% 18.8% 41.7% 24.4% 64.6% 71.2% 17.9% 40% 14.1%
Adams, Riley was 939 -3 42.4% 6.6% 40.7% 13.2% 53.3% 59.8% 40.4% 49.5% 27%
Jeffers, Ryan min 1427 -4 45% 21.8% 48.6% 20.2% 54% 58% 32.4% 55% 17.1%
Smith, Will la 2209 -4 43.6% 17.1% 43.6% 23.1% 54.1% 63.4% 28.5% 50.3% 19.5%
Stallings, Jacob col 1395 -4 43.1% 12.3% 48.6% 15.9% 55.1% 64.7% 32.2% 41.8% 24.7%
Campusano, Luis sd 1666 -5 44.2% 19% 50.6% 21.2% 45.8% 68.3% 25.5% 49.5% 25.4%
Wong, Connor bos 1794 -5 45% 10.4% 44.9% 15.2% 57.3% 66% 36.4% 50.5% 18.8%
Langeliers, Shea oak 2303 -5 43.8% 19% 47.6% 24.4% 57.7% 67.3% 22.4% 39.9% 16.9%
McCann, James bal 1204 -5 42.9% 15.6% 43.9% 21.1% 49.7% 59% 27.3% 55.1% 18.5%
Diaz, Yainer hou 1982 -7 43.5% 17.5% 50.5% 28.6% 60.8% 62.3% 20.6% 37.2% 23.5%