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
Trevino, Jose nyy 487 3 55.2% 21.2% 45.6% 31.6% 64.4% 77.5% 33.3% 56.4% 48.8%
Naylor, Bo cle 683 3 52.7% 24.1% 51.4% 20% 63.8% 73.9% 28.3% 59.1% 26.7%
Heim, Jonah tex 731 2 49.1% 21.6% 35.6% 31% 66.1% 71.3% 32.6% 48.8% 30.2%
Díaz, Elias col 708 2 47.2% 30.6% 51.5% 35.9% 72.2% 61.4% 25.5% 35.5% 13.3%
Rortvedt, Ben tb 579 2 49.6% 13.5% 58.7% 15.6% 60.9% 68% 30.2% 48.9% 36.8%
Wells, Austin nyy 530 2 49.8% 10.8% 46.7% 29.3% 53.6% 70.8% 38% 60.9% 35.3%
Kirk, Alejandro tor 608 2 51.8% 16.3% 59.7% 14.3% 73.3% 67.8% 22.2% 53.8% 30.3%
Nido, Tomás nym 305 1 48.5% 10.5% 46.2% 26.3% 40.4% 78.4% 30.8% 58.6% 22.2%
Fermin, Freddy kc 488 1 47.1% 15.4% 36.9% 10.5% 53.3% 60.3% 38.1% 75.5% 21.2%
Rogers, Jake det 513 1 51.5% 25% 39.7% 15.8% 61.6% 58.3% 40% 66.7% 36%
O'Hoppe, Logan ana 796 1 45% 24.1% 49.5% 25% 66.9% 57.5% 23.1% 45.4% 19.4%
Moreno, Gabriel ari 689 1 49.9% 10.5% 41.3% 18.6% 61.7% 67.9% 56% 55.8% 22.2%
Higashioka, Kyle sd 274 1 47.4% 7.7% 56.8% 20% 55.6% 66.7% 20% 51.9% 31.7%
Stephenson, Tyler cin 574 1 47.4% 17.4% 56.3% 18.4% 59.6% 71.1% 29.7% 50% 24.2%
Bailey, Patrick sf 739 1 49.1% 22.7% 43.8% 16.7% 60.6% 65.3% 37.5% 56.5% 32.1%
Vázquez, Christian min 509 1 47.5% 13.5% 47.2% 28.9% 58.5% 75.5% 25.9% 44.7% 30.6%
Perez, Salvador kc 632 1 48.9% 11.4% 35.2% 8.7% 58.2% 71.4% 33.3% 59.5% 31.9%
Alvarez, Francisco nym 396 1 48.5% 16.7% 48.8% 19.4% 44.4% 73.8% 47.1% 50% 34.9%
Raleigh, Cal sea 751 1 48.6% 14.3% 39.3% 25% 60.6% 72.8% 37% 50.6% 30.5%
Hedges, Austin cle 265 1 48.3% 16.7% 27% 10% 66.7% 66.7% 35.7% 51.9% 29.6%
Caratini, Victor hou 329 0 43.2% 10% 45.7% 22.7% 53.2% 66.7% 29.6% 46.1% 16.7%
Rutschman, Adley bal 587 0 44.5% 22% 45.1% 27.6% 61.5% 62.4% 28.1% 44.2% 20.5%
Sánchez, Gary mil 214 0 43.9% 10% 38.9% 18.2% 63.3% 69% 21.1% 41.8% 26.1%
Langeliers, Shea oak 847 0 45.1% 21.2% 49.5% 22.9% 63.2% 60.6% 30% 40.9% 20.2%
Contreras, Willson stl 528 0 48.7% 8% 44.4% 16.7% 67.8% 63.6% 41.9% 53.8% 20%
Murphy, Tom sf 302 0 45% 6.7% 40.6% 13.3% 55.6% 69.1% 35% 51.4% 13.5%
Tromp, Chadwick atl 303 0 46.5% 15% 37.8% 20% 58.5% 82% 28.6% 41.7% 16.7%
Amaya, Miguel chc 615 0 47.6% 24.5% 55.2% 16.7% 54% 68.4% 29.7% 54.8% 22.6%
Stallings, Jacob col 354 0 47.2% 12.5% 40% 20% 66.2% 74.6% 23.8% 40.3% 23.1%
Barnes, Austin la 270 0 46.3% 11.1% 34% 0% 53.6% 73.9% 33.3% 53.4% 36.8%
McCann, Kyle oak 259 0 48.3% 6.7% 40.6% 22.2% 61.7% 63.9% 33.3% 57.4% 26.7%
McGuire, Reese bos 522 0 46.7% 20% 38.2% 22.2% 59.2% 59% 27.9% 64.2% 20.3%
Thaiss, Matt ana 239 0 47.3% 7.1% 48% 0% 70.6% 67.4% 47.4% 38.7% 13.3%
d'Arnaud, Travis atl 597 0 46.1% 13.9% 60.9% 10% 55.5% 63.6% 14.6% 52.6% 22%
Knizner, Andrew tex 245 0 48.6% 21.1% 30.4% 12.5% 60% 64% 40.9% 66% 21.4%
Pinto, René tb 441 0 44.7% 21.7% 52.4% 13.8% 55.8% 58.9% 35.3% 45.2% 29.3%
Kelly, Carson det 450 0 49.3% 15.4% 57.8% 0% 65.7% 75% 32.6% 45.5% 19.6%
Jansen, Danny tor 347 0 45.2% 11.8% 38.1% 9.5% 61.9% 67.9% 15% 44.6% 28.1%
McCann, James bal 442 -1 45.2% 20.8% 48.5% 17.4% 54.5% 56.6% 33.3% 61.9% 17.5%
Barnhart, Tucker ari 331 -1 40.8% 0% 33.3% 9.5% 57.7% 59.1% 16.7% 47.1% 15.6%
Wong, Connor bos 527 -1 43.8% 11.6% 45.1% 11.1% 49.4% 68.2% 30% 52.1% 26.7%
Ruiz, Keibert was 438 -1 41.1% 4.8% 42.9% 14.3% 68.4% 55.3% 23.3% 42.5% 22.4%
Herrera, Iván stl 484 -1 44.2% 16.7% 26.3% 17.6% 65% 61.1% 17.1% 58.9% 30.2%
Davis, Henry pit 580 -1 44.1% 9.7% 41.2% 25% 44.8% 73.9% 33.3% 56.6% 18.5%
Fortes, Nick mia 742 -1 45.8% 15% 26.7% 8.3% 63.3% 58.3% 36.5% 61% 21.2%
Diaz, Yainer hou 728 -1 42.9% 13.6% 48.7% 31.3% 60.3% 59.2% 19.5% 39.5% 25.4%
Adams, Riley was 562 -1 42.5% 5.7% 33.3% 3.3% 55.7% 56.1% 51.7% 51.2% 23.2%
Bart, Joey pit 363 -1 43% 7.1% 29.2% 15.8% 47.7% 69.1% 25% 54.1% 31.4%
Smith, Will la 808 -1 43.6% 10.4% 30.9% 29.4% 55.1% 63.1% 35.3% 54.9% 25.5%
Jeffers, Ryan min 476 -1 44.7% 26.5% 39.2% 15.4% 55.7% 57.7% 44.4% 57.1% 16.7%
Bethancourt, Christian mia 413 -1 42.6% 19.2% 39% 17.4% 61.1% 67.1% 20.7% 37.8% 18.2%
Lee, Korey cws 525 -1 42.7% 10% 36.8% 9.1% 53.9% 63.5% 27.8% 56.6% 18.3%
Narváez, Omar nym 468 -2 41% 20% 41.1% 18.8% 47.7% 57.6% 21.4% 57.1% 12.5%
Maile, Luke cin 418 -2 37.3% 6.9% 45.6% 29.4% 43.9% 63.4% 15.6% 33.8% 7.1%
Contreras, William mil 880 -2 44.4% 17% 28.6% 13.5% 61.2% 61.1% 35.7% 52.6% 20%
Gomes, Yan chc 444 -2 39.9% 16.7% 46% 15% 54% 61.1% 18.2% 40% 12.9%
Maldonado, Martín cws 615 -2 39.7% 17.5% 42.7% 17.4% 43.8% 65.3% 26.7% 38.4% 12.7%
Realmuto, J.T. phi 905 -2 45.3% 16.9% 33.3% 12% 64.9% 68.8% 26.5% 49.5% 18.2%
Campusano, Luis sd 834 -2 44.2% 14.3% 52.9% 29.2% 50% 67.5% 20% 48% 21.4%