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 2807 16 53% 24.1% 56% 28.4% 64.4% 71.9% 32% 55.5% 33%
Raleigh, Cal sea 2965 12 49.6% 21.8% 54.7% 30.6% 60.9% 69.1% 30.5% 47.9% 29.2%
Wells, Austin nyy 2457 10 49% 21.8% 47.2% 24.1% 57.4% 67.4% 33.3% 57.1% 30.9%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 2240 9 50.7% 20.7% 51.4% 22.7% 68.6% 62.5% 36.2% 56.1% 30.5%
Trevino, Jose nyy 1653 9 51.4% 23.8% 46.9% 17.9% 62.4% 74.3% 35.6% 53.7% 35.3%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 2010 8 48.9% 16.2% 50% 23.5% 53.1% 67.9% 39.6% 54.3% 33.9%
Vázquez, Christian min 2034 7 49.7% 17.1% 54.1% 29.9% 65.3% 72.7% 27.8% 44.6% 29.2%
Naylor, Bo cle 2560 7 49.9% 24.9% 46.6% 21% 66.7% 68.4% 35.6% 52% 23.3%
Grandal, Yasmani pit 1680 6 49.1% 11.5% 48.1% 27% 47.1% 71.3% 36.1% 52.9% 40.3%
Rogers, Jake det 2049 6 50.1% 19.4% 51.5% 26% 60.3% 63.2% 36.6% 57.7% 30.7%
Hedges, Austin cle 1233 5 51.4% 31.2% 51.7% 19.4% 62.5% 69.2% 31% 56.1% 25.6%
Jackson, Alex tb 1297 4 50.9% 11.3% 53.7% 26.2% 55.6% 71.6% 17% 58.2% 29.6%
Díaz, Elias sd 1970 3 47% 29.4% 56.8% 32% 66.5% 62.1% 23.2% 38.1% 14.1%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 2205 2 47.3% 12.6% 51.8% 19.8% 54.5% 68.9% 27.9% 50% 32.8%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 2155 2 47.2% 18.1% 37.1% 17.9% 61.8% 65% 37.3% 56.8% 22.7%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 1925 1 47.1% 17.1% 46.5% 20.6% 57.3% 66.5% 34.2% 56% 22.2%
Caratini, Victor hou 1354 1 47.9% 18.5% 50.7% 26.1% 64.2% 67.9% 29.2% 47.9% 22%
Kelly, Carson tex 1955 1 48.8% 17.3% 40.9% 33.3% 65.4% 68.1% 35.9% 51.8% 26.5%
Murphy, Sean atl 1630 1 47.4% 12.1% 40.7% 21.1% 54.7% 69.4% 34.8% 57.7% 22.6%
Nido, Tomás chc 1184 1 45.7% 11.3% 48% 24.4% 42.3% 77.1% 28.4% 45.2% 25.2%
McGuire, Reese bos 1201 1 50.3% 24.4% 44.9% 26.2% 61% 66.5% 33.3% 63.1% 27.1%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 2939 0 44.6% 18.9% 52.6% 31.6% 54.3% 67.2% 20.7% 44.1% 19.1%
Pagés, Pedro stl 1432 0 45.4% 24.7% 47.4% 20% 63.3% 60.1% 30.3% 48.2% 16.6%
Perez, Salvador kc 2354 0 48.1% 19% 47% 19.4% 60.2% 66.7% 37.2% 51.3% 24.7%
Barnes, Austin la 1055 0 45% 12.8% 39.9% 9.4% 58.5% 66.9% 20.6% 51.6% 32.7%
Contreras, William mil 3175 -1 47.4% 15.2% 43.5% 25.3% 59.5% 65.4% 34.2% 53.6% 26.7%
Casali, Curt sf 978 -1 46.9% 25.4% 50.4% 23.1% 61.7% 65.1% 27.9% 50.3% 15.3%
Ruiz, Keibert was 2751 -1 45.2% 19.4% 44.2% 24.5% 62.6% 67.8% 22.3% 43.7% 19.8%
Thaiss, Matt ana 931 -1 43.6% 24.2% 45.6% 20.5% 59% 62.2% 26.2% 43.7% 14.9%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 3203 -1 45% 25.1% 48.6% 23.2% 61.7% 57.6% 31.6% 46.1% 20.4%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 2009 -1 47.4% 21.3% 52.5% 19.6% 59.2% 64.3% 28.7% 50.5% 19.4%
Bart, Joey pit 1479 -1 45% 7.5% 38% 33.8% 52.2% 70% 21.4% 49.4% 28%
Herrera, Iván stl 1386 -1 46.4% 18.4% 42.9% 13.6% 64% 61.3% 30.4% 54.1% 27.4%
Fermin, Freddy kc 1960 -1 47.8% 15.3% 38.8% 20.4% 57.9% 67.2% 28.6% 63.4% 25.4%
Fortes, Nick mia 2579 -1 46.4% 20.2% 39.9% 17.7% 56.5% 65.2% 34.4% 54.3% 26%
Heim, Jonah tex 2793 -2 46.6% 20.1% 41% 29.5% 62.9% 67% 28.8% 47% 21.1%
Rutschman, Adley bal 2673 -2 46.2% 33.3% 55.5% 36.4% 61.2% 65.1% 26.4% 38.4% 14%
Davis, Henry pit 875 -2 42.7% 11.3% 44.5% 25.7% 45.6% 70.2% 25% 50% 20.7%
Stubbs, Garrett phi 1243 -2 44% 12.5% 34.9% 9.8% 56.2% 61.9% 28.4% 52.5% 25.6%
Contreras, Willson stl 1392 -2 44.1% 12.8% 52.6% 19.8% 62.3% 59.2% 30.1% 45.3% 18.5%
Jansen, Danny bos 1956 -2 44.1% 19.3% 46% 16.7% 59.4% 64.7% 27.6% 40.6% 21.6%
Amaya, Miguel chc 2780 -3 45.9% 26.4% 51.5% 21.2% 54.7% 63.3% 27.1% 49.4% 24.9%
Maldonado, Martín cws 1353 -3 42.4% 15.4% 43% 26.7% 53% 67% 20.5% 37.6% 19.9%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 2473 -3 45.1% 14.4% 36.6% 12.9% 62.3% 63.8% 34.1% 51.2% 18.5%
McCann, Kyle oak 1019 -3 44.4% 10.5% 42.6% 22.2% 54.3% 65% 33.3% 46.8% 21.9%
Maile, Luke cin 1156 -4 40.5% 10.3% 51.2% 27.3% 48.2% 68.6% 14.7% 35.3% 12%
Adams, Riley was 1100 -4 41.5% 6.8% 41.3% 11.5% 53% 57.6% 35.6% 50% 26.8%
Bethancourt, Christian chc 1173 -4 44.8% 20.3% 44.3% 30.5% 64.8% 67.6% 24.2% 40% 12.1%
McCann, James bal 1628 -4 44.7% 23.3% 49.5% 24.5% 53.5% 58.6% 27.8% 53.2% 20.4%
Langeliers, Shea oak 3304 -5 43.9% 19.6% 49.4% 24.2% 59.3% 66.8% 19.2% 39.7% 18.1%
Jeffers, Ryan min 2017 -6 44.6% 20.1% 48.3% 20.2% 54.5% 59.8% 29.4% 53% 17.7%
Lee, Korey cws 2720 -6 43.4% 19.9% 46% 13.8% 59.9% 60.8% 22.5% 49% 19.6%
Stallings, Jacob col 1910 -7 43% 11.2% 45.4% 19.8% 55.9% 66.5% 25.5% 42.6% 24.8%
Smith, Will la 3049 -7 43.5% 20.9% 46.7% 21.5% 56.8% 62.4% 26.7% 46% 19%
Wong, Connor bos 2547 -8 45.3% 11.6% 47.1% 21.6% 55.1% 68.6% 33.3% 47.4% 19.5%
Campusano, Luis sd 2130 -8 44% 17.7% 49.7% 20.7% 46.7% 69.1% 25.2% 48% 24.4%
Diaz, Yainer hou 2746 -9 44.6% 17.8% 54.1% 25.1% 61.3% 62.2% 21.4% 39.5% 23.4%