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 2361 12 52.2% 23.6% 54% 28.8% 64.2% 70.5% 30.6% 55.3% 32.7%
Raleigh, Cal sea 2398 9 49.5% 21.5% 54.2% 31% 61.7% 68.2% 30.6% 47.2% 28%
Trevino, Jose nyy 1442 8 51.8% 23.5% 45.6% 19.2% 64.9% 75.3% 33.3% 54.1% 33.5%
Wells, Austin nyy 1859 7 49.1% 20.1% 44.2% 22.7% 58.4% 69.7% 34.8% 58.1% 31%
Naylor, Bo cle 2100 6 50.1% 23.9% 42% 19.8% 66.1% 70% 34.9% 54.5% 23.7%
Rogers, Jake det 1616 6 50.6% 19.8% 49.2% 27.5% 60.9% 61.8% 38.6% 60.2% 31.2%
Vázquez, Christian min 1664 6 49.8% 15.3% 53.5% 30.3% 67.8% 72.5% 28.4% 44.4% 27.5%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 1503 5 48.5% 17.3% 49.7% 20.2% 51.8% 70.9% 34.3% 53.3% 31.9%
Hedges, Austin cle 970 5 52.8% 30.9% 48.2% 23.9% 62.4% 71.5% 35.7% 58.7% 30.4%
Grandal, Yasmani pit 1299 5 49.7% 13.5% 49.2% 29.7% 47.5% 70.5% 35.9% 53.4% 41%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 1701 5 50.4% 19.4% 50.8% 22.2% 69.4% 62.3% 37.4% 56.5% 27.6%
Díaz, Elias col 1868 4 47.3% 30% 56.6% 35.2% 67.4% 62% 22% 38.8% 13.6%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 1805 3 48.6% 14% 52.3% 20.7% 56.5% 69.7% 29.7% 50.5% 32.8%
Jackson, Alex tb 1047 2 50% 7.8% 52.7% 23.4% 54.7% 70% 18.4% 59.9% 28%
Knizner, Andrew tex 764 2 49.2% 16.7% 43.2% 20% 60% 66.7% 48.1% 52.9% 20.3%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 1497 2 46.6% 15% 45% 19.8% 58.4% 67.3% 34.4% 55.2% 23.1%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 2155 2 47.2% 18.1% 37.1% 17.9% 61.8% 65% 37.3% 56.8% 22.7%
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 1084 1 47.1% 21.6% 47% 23.2% 64.8% 68.6% 28.7% 45.9% 20%
McGuire, Reese bos 1194 1 50.1% 24.4% 43.8% 26.2% 61% 66.3% 33.3% 63% 26.8%
Murphy, Sean atl 1215 1 46.7% 13.8% 40.1% 25.9% 53.2% 68.9% 33% 57.4% 20.5%
Kelly, Carson tex 1606 1 48.5% 18.5% 40.9% 27.5% 64.4% 68.4% 36.6% 51.2% 28.6%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 2254 0 44.1% 17.2% 51.7% 30.8% 53.3% 67.4% 21.2% 45.9% 17.8%
Amaya, Miguel chc 2232 0 46.7% 24.1% 51.9% 20.3% 55.7% 63.9% 28.2% 52% 26.3%
Pagés, Pedro stl 1097 0 44.6% 26.1% 46.3% 18% 62.9% 57.6% 26.4% 50.9% 15.2%
Barnes, Austin la 896 0 45% 12.1% 38.5% 10.6% 56.6% 66.9% 20.4% 53.7% 32.9%
Thaiss, Matt ana 720 -1 42.9% 22.2% 40.7% 16.7% 61.7% 62.6% 27.3% 42.3% 14.1%
Bart, Joey pit 1193 -1 44.2% 7.6% 34% 31.8% 48.9% 70.3% 17.5% 51.2% 29.1%
Herrera, Iván stl 1166 -1 45.9% 16.7% 35.9% 12.7% 65.1% 62.3% 28.2% 54.7% 29.9%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 1676 -1 47.3% 19.8% 51.2% 18.2% 59.6% 65% 27.9% 50.3% 19.7%
McCann, Kyle oak 873 -1 45% 10.9% 44.9% 21.6% 53.1% 63.7% 34% 49.4% 22.7%
Perez, Salvador kc 2000 -1 47.6% 15.9% 42.7% 16.9% 58.8% 67.6% 38.2% 52.3% 25.7%
Contreras, Willson stl 1185 -1 44.6% 10.4% 51.3% 17.5% 63.4% 61.4% 28.8% 45.1% 19.8%
Fortes, Nick mia 2106 -1 46.9% 15.8% 40.2% 15.8% 55.8% 66.9% 34.1% 56.2% 28.5%
Barnhart, Tucker ari 794 -2 41.1% 0% 39.1% 10.9% 56.8% 56.8% 17.5% 47.9% 21.1%
Jansen, Danny bos 1596 -2 44.1% 19.8% 46.4% 14.8% 59.7% 64.1% 26.1% 41.4% 20.8%
Davis, Henry pit 710 -2 43.2% 8.9% 43.4% 21.9% 47.8% 71% 29.5% 54% 17.9%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 2692 -2 44.4% 25.4% 48% 23.4% 61.8% 56.7% 29.6% 44.5% 19.4%
Heim, Jonah tex 2387 -2 46.1% 16.3% 38.9% 27.8% 62.8% 67% 30.3% 47.7% 21.1%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 1892 -2 45.6% 16.5% 35% 9.9% 61.9% 63.4% 35.8% 52.7% 19.8%
Ruiz, Keibert was 2232 -2 45.1% 20% 44.2% 24.5% 63.6% 66.4% 23.2% 42.9% 19.7%
Fermin, Freddy kc 1549 -2 47% 12.6% 36.3% 21.6% 58.1% 63.3% 28.1% 66.4% 26.9%
Adams, Riley was 999 -3 41.6% 7.4% 42.1% 12.9% 52.4% 56.8% 38.4% 49.5% 26.6%
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 1018 -3 40.9% 11.1% 49% 27.5% 48.5% 70% 15.3% 36.3% 11.5%
Stubbs, Garrett phi 1090 -3 43.1% 12.3% 34.8% 10.3% 56.8% 60% 27.7% 51.9% 23.8%
Maldonado, Martín cws 1353 -3 42.4% 15.4% 43% 26.7% 53% 67% 20.5% 37.6% 19.9%
Contreras, William mil 2647 -3 46.7% 14.7% 42.5% 24% 59.1% 63.4% 33.7% 53.9% 25.5%
Rutschman, Adley bal 2210 -3 45.6% 29.4% 53.6% 35.9% 59.7% 64% 25.3% 40.7% 13.8%
Bethancourt, Christian chc 947 -3 44.4% 15.8% 42.1% 28.6% 64.4% 71.3% 20% 39.1% 12.6%
Stallings, Jacob col 1579 -4 43.3% 13.2% 46.5% 16.4% 55.2% 66% 29% 42% 26%
Smith, Will la 2427 -4 43.6% 18.1% 45.1% 22.7% 55.6% 63% 26.2% 48.6% 19.9%
Lee, Korey cws 2133 -4 43.8% 18.4% 44.6% 14.6% 56% 63.5% 23.6% 50% 20.4%
Campusano, Luis sd 1774 -5 44.3% 19.2% 51.2% 21% 46.1% 69.1% 25.7% 47.3% 26.3%
Jeffers, Ryan min 1654 -5 44.5% 19.4% 49.2% 21.1% 53.8% 59.4% 28.9% 53.6% 16.4%
Langeliers, Shea oak 2614 -5 43.8% 17.8% 49% 25.7% 57.7% 66.5% 20.9% 40.1% 17.2%
McCann, James bal 1363 -5 43.5% 18.6% 44.9% 20.5% 51.3% 57.7% 30.1% 54.5% 19.6%
Wong, Connor bos 2098 -6 45.1% 10.8% 45.7% 17.4% 54.8% 67.8% 34.4% 50.3% 18.4%
Diaz, Yainer hou 2266 -8 44.1% 17.3% 52.1% 26.8% 62.1% 62.3% 20.5% 38.2% 23.1%