STL12
9th
PHI7
BOS5
9th
DET5
TB1
8th
TOR3
PIT4
6th
NYM0
CWS4
7th
CIN1
WSH1
7th
ATL4
MIA3
7th
CHC1
COL1
4th
TEX4
KC2
4th
HOU0
Preview Matchup
Hendricks vs. Vásquez
LAA
1:40 AM
SD
Preview Matchup
Hoglund vs. Yamamoto
ATH
2:10 AM
LAD
MIN6
Final
BAL3
MIN8
Final
BAL6
STL1
Final
PHI2
MIL9
Final
CLE5
AZ8
Final
SF7
NYY3
Final
SEA2
<
>

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
▾
2022
▾
Min Called Pitches: Qualified
▾


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
1 Chirinos, Robinson bal 1,805 -14 40% 11.6% 41% 19% 50.8% 54.3% 32.6% 50.4% 16.9%
2 Melendez, MJ kc 2,094 -12 41.8% 13.4% 38.3% 11.6% 55.9% 59.8% 27.7% 45.4% 21.1%
3 Suzuki, Kurt ana 1,155 -4 42.4% 16.9% 46.3% 11.7% 63.8% 53.1% 24.6% 48.1% 20%
4 Adams, Riley was 1,280 -6 42.8% 20% 45.9% 25.3% 61% 59.1% 31.3% 40.8% 12.8%
5 Perez, Salvador kc 2,186 -8 43% 23.8% 53.4% 16.7% 64.2% 57.6% 25.3% 36.9% 15.4%
6 Stubbs, Garrett phi 988 -4 43.2% 15.8% 36.4% 17.9% 61.4% 52.2% 29.9% 52.2% 20.5%
7 Díaz, Elias col 2,932 -7 43.9% 26.8% 54.1% 15.4% 65.7% 51% 27.8% 40.7% 16.9%
8 Romine, Austin cin 1,195 -2 44.1% 18.9% 54% 21.4% 58.2% 63.9% 30.9% 43.2% 14.4%
9 Knizner, Andrew stl 2,403 -6 44.1% 17% 48.9% 23.4% 56.1% 67.3% 21.9% 40.9% 22%
10 Pérez, Michael nym 1,214 -3 44.2% 22.4% 45.5% 17% 54.8% 57.3% 32.1% 52.2% 21.7%
11 Maile, Luke cle 1,575 -1 44.3% 20.4% 51.4% 21.3% 62.4% 62.6% 23.9% 38.8% 20.9%
12 Haase, Eric det 1,982 -6 44.8% 16.1% 44.1% 24.7% 64.3% 56.3% 31.9% 50% 16.5%
13 Contreras, William atl 1,629 -3 45.1% 18.8% 49.6% 23.8% 59.5% 64.5% 25.9% 43.6% 20.3%
14 Stephenson, Tyler cin 1,352 -2 45.2% 16.8% 44.1% 21.3% 62.2% 63.9% 29.9% 44.6% 26.2%
15 Ruiz, Keibert was 3,116 -4 45.8% 23.8% 50.9% 24.8% 68.2% 57.8% 34.3% 42.5% 15.6%
16 Contreras, Willson chc 2,048 0 46% 20.3% 58.6% 22.4% 65.6% 55.5% 31.3% 42.9% 22.1%
17 Stallings, Jacob mia 2,945 -7 46% 16.3% 43.9% 18.5% 58.6% 58.6% 29.4% 54% 26.4%
18 Mejía, Francisco tb 1,959 -3 46.3% 19.4% 48.7% 20% 59.2% 61.5% 35.9% 52.3% 23.6%
19 Nola, Austin sd 3,060 -10 46.4% 23.4% 45% 21.2% 59.6% 64.5% 29.1% 49.6% 22.2%
20 Casali, Curt sea 1,314 -2 46.5% 19.2% 42.9% 18.8% 59.6% 62.2% 22.5% 52.3% 25.7%
21 Herrera, Jose ari 1,194 0 46.6% 26.8% 39.2% 25.3% 61.7% 70% 30.2% 40.6% 24.1%
22 Gomes, Yan chc 1,993 0 46.6% 26.7% 56% 15.6% 66.7% 55% 31.7% 49.7% 15.8%
23 Jansen, Danny tor 1,631 -1 46.7% 16.5% 50.8% 12% 67.8% 59.6% 36% 48.3% 19.2%
24 Alfaro, Jorge sd 1,768 -2 46.7% 16.9% 47.6% 34.1% 53.8% 71.9% 20.2% 48% 22.1%
25 McGuire, Reese bos 2,095 3 46.8% 32.4% 54.7% 24.3% 68.5% 60.2% 23.2% 45.7% 20.4%
26 Stassi, Max ana 2,498 0 46.8% 25% 46.3% 20.8% 64.4% 58.4% 29.5% 54.8% 20%
27 Barnhart, Tucker det 2,550 -3 46.9% 16.7% 42.3% 21% 62% 66.4% 25% 52.3% 27.2%
28 Bart, Joey sf 2,313 -1 47% 18.2% 54.6% 15.3% 57.4% 68.2% 27.9% 48.9% 26.5%
29 Bethancourt, Christian tb 1,297 0 47.1% 15.2% 46.4% 22.8% 61.8% 67.4% 27% 51.2% 21.3%
30 Smith, Will la 3,027 -2 47.1% 19.4% 44.8% 21.5% 61.6% 67.9% 21.1% 52.1% 26.6%
31 Sánchez, Gary min 2,278 1 47.2% 23.1% 51% 22% 60.4% 65.5% 28% 54.2% 23.8%
32 Kelly, Carson ari 2,595 3 47.7% 19.3% 51.1% 19.3% 61.1% 58.4% 35.8% 53% 23.6%
33 Wynns, Austin sf 1,325 0 47.7% 14.9% 54.5% 31.1% 63.2% 65.2% 17.7% 48% 22%
34 Grandal, Yasmani cws 1,705 4 47.9% 15.9% 59.3% 34.2% 62.5% 64.2% 20.2% 46.7% 22.3%
35 Vázquez, Christian hou 2,909 1 47.9% 22.7% 55.9% 26.5% 62.9% 63.7% 29.7% 50.5% 22.9%
36 Maldonado, Martín hou 3,272 -1 47.9% 25.6% 53.6% 26.9% 65.9% 60.9% 30.8% 48.6% 20.4%
37 Heineman, Tyler pit 1,464 3 48% 15.2% 44.6% 21.3% 61.1% 65% 35.6% 56.8% 26.7%
38 Realmuto, J.T. phi 4,144 -1 48% 21.6% 43.6% 23.5% 66.4% 63.5% 33.1% 51.9% 23.6%
39 McCann, James nym 1,407 2 48.1% 15.9% 53.9% 20.9% 48.8% 71.1% 25.4% 55% 27.7%
40 Jeffers, Ryan min 1,540 2 48.1% 23.7% 56.8% 17.8% 64.3% 66.8% 26.9% 45.3% 28.5%
41 Plawecki, Kevin tex 1,486 1 48.3% 22.2% 56.7% 33% 62.3% 66.2% 29.3% 47.1% 18.9%
42 Caratini, Victor mil 2,422 1 48.4% 15.2% 49.8% 20.5% 56.6% 69.7% 32.1% 52.9% 32.5%
43 Higashioka, Kyle nyy 1,968 4 48.6% 11.5% 43.7% 14% 70.4% 58.6% 40.7% 59.4% 29.6%
44 Delay, Jason pit 1,447 2 48.6% 28.3% 49.4% 33.3% 55.7% 67.6% 28.9% 55.3% 26.7%
45 Fortes, Nick mia 1,520 -1 48.7% 22.4% 50.6% 30.9% 62% 65.1% 28.1% 53.4% 23.2%
46 d'Arnaud, Travis atl 2,813 10 48.9% 21.6% 43% 25% 65.5% 60.3% 37.6% 57.1% 24.9%
47 Hedges, Austin cle 2,585 1 48.9% 16.5% 46.5% 24.3% 66.5% 66.2% 34.9% 55.6% 28.1%
48 Molina, Yadier stl 2,202 5 49.1% 28.5% 60.6% 35.5% 63.8% 65.8% 29.9% 43.3% 22.6%
49 Raleigh, Cal sea 2,777 9 49.2% 21.9% 54.5% 24.3% 65.1% 62.5% 26.7% 57.3% 27.4%
50 Garcia, Aramis cin 1,070 2 49.3% 17.5% 49.6% 21.6% 71.4% 63.8% 46.2% 48.5% 23.7%
51 Murphy, Sean oak 3,263 8 49.6% 25.3% 48.2% 24.9% 61.3% 68.1% 29.8% 54.3% 31.1%
52 Rutschman, Adley bal 2,356 4 49.6% 28.4% 52.7% 31.4% 68.2% 62.6% 40.5% 55.2% 18.6%
53 Barnes, Austin la 1,525 2 49.8% 11.8% 41.1% 14.6% 57.6% 65.1% 37.6% 67.1% 35.3%
54 Narváez, Omar mil 2,370 6 49.9% 17% 47% 21.4% 63.9% 67.5% 37.3% 55.2% 24.4%
55 Serven, Brian col 1,564 5 50.2% 14.9% 60.2% 37.1% 59.2% 68% 34.3% 50.7% 26.4%
56 Nido, Tomás nym 2,391 5 50.4% 17.3% 50% 29.5% 58.3% 71.7% 31.4% 54.8% 32.9%
57 Kirk, Alejandro tor 1,978 9 50.8% 24.1% 47% 14.5% 71% 60.8% 42.1% 58.5% 20.7%
58 Zavala, Seby cws 1,380 4 51.5% 19% 55.6% 30.1% 67.3% 68.4% 36.2% 55.2% 27.2%
59 Heim, Jonah tex 2,921 12 51.6% 31% 58.8% 21.5% 65.9% 70.9% 36.2% 48.3% 26.9%
60 Trevino, Jose nyy 2,719 17 53.8% 20.6% 44.9% 19.7% 71.1% 69.1% 40.5% 62.3% 30.9%