Preview Matchup
Waldron vs. Wheeler
SD
10:35 PM
PHI
Preview Matchup
Fedde vs. Heaney
STL
10:40 PM
PIT
Preview Matchup
Rodón vs. Scherzer
NYY
11:07 PM
TOR
Preview Matchup
Burns vs. Crochet
CIN
11:10 PM
BOS
Preview Matchup
Lopez vs. Rasmussen
ATH
11:35 PM
TB
Preview Matchup
Rogers vs. Corbin
BAL
12:05 AM
TEX
Preview Matchup
Wacha vs. Kirby
KC
1:40 AM
SEA
Preview Matchup
Webb vs. Nelson
SF
1:40 AM
AZ
<
>

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
▾
2023
▾
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 Bailey, Patrick sf 2,513 16 52.9% 26.8% 54.6% 30.8% 61.4% 66.5% 37.2% 59.3% 31.8%
2 Hedges, Austin tex 2,025 13 52.5% 27.6% 58.3% 42.2% 53.8% 70% 38.8% 60.7% 26.5%
3 Heim, Jonah tex 3,657 10 48.5% 20.1% 49.3% 28% 63.5% 69.2% 27.5% 46.9% 24.4%
4 Alvarez, Francisco nym 3,006 9 48.9% 20.5% 49.1% 28.7% 67.2% 64.2% 35.8% 52.7% 26.1%
5 Murphy, Sean atl 2,913 7 48.9% 18.3% 44.3% 21.8% 59.5% 62.5% 34.1% 62.5% 24.1%
6 Higashioka, Kyle nyy 2,078 7 48.7% 12.7% 41.4% 26% 58.2% 65.8% 32.3% 63.8% 30%
7 Contreras, William mil 3,310 7 48% 15.1% 50.1% 23.8% 58.1% 65.1% 32.4% 56.2% 26%
8 Trevino, Jose nyy 1,450 6 49.9% 20.2% 49% 19% 65% 65.8% 43.5% 56.5% 22.9%
9 Raleigh, Cal sea 3,257 6 47.5% 22.4% 50.2% 23% 64.1% 64% 34.6% 46.7% 20.4%
10 Caratini, Victor mil 1,686 6 47.7% 22.5% 54.8% 23.3% 58.7% 66.7% 26.2% 51.4% 24.6%
11 Rogers, Jake det 2,751 5 48.7% 19.3% 41.9% 20.6% 56.6% 65.5% 36.8% 60.8% 23.8%
12 Kirk, Alejandro tor 2,595 5 49.2% 17% 48% 9.5% 63.9% 61.9% 40.3% 58.6% 24.5%
13 Zavala, Seby ari 1,669 5 49.9% 15.7% 53.3% 29% 69.2% 66.1% 40.9% 50.8% 24.6%
14 Rutschman, Adley bal 3,064 5 48.3% 22.2% 60.3% 28.1% 69.7% 61.8% 29.6% 42.1% 21%
15 Gallagher, Cam cle 1,430 5 51.2% 22.2% 49.5% 26.1% 65.9% 65.1% 40% 53.1% 28.9%
16 d'Arnaud, Travis atl 1,857 4 48.4% 21.4% 49.8% 17.9% 61.5% 63% 33.1% 54.1% 23.1%
17 Grandal, Yasmani cws 2,369 4 47.4% 18.9% 55.4% 35.1% 56.2% 68.9% 26.5% 48.3% 21.6%
18 Delay, Jason pit 1,669 4 48.2% 18.6% 48.6% 28.4% 51.3% 69.6% 29% 59.1% 25.3%
19 Wynns, Austin col 1,346 3 47.5% 20.2% 57.1% 38.2% 59.3% 63.8% 30.2% 44% 17.4%
20 Vázquez, Christian min 2,474 3 47.9% 17.3% 47.1% 29.3% 60.4% 66.5% 35% 53.6% 25.6%
21 Fortes, Nick mia 2,662 3 47.4% 18.4% 46.6% 13.8% 59.9% 62.3% 32.7% 56.7% 26.3%
22 Naylor, Bo cle 1,756 3 47.2% 22.5% 51.6% 25.5% 63.8% 66.4% 26.5% 43.5% 25.8%
23 Barnhart, Tucker chc 975 3 49.7% 24.1% 53.2% 26.1% 62.3% 66% 32.6% 54.3% 21.1%
24 Sánchez, Gary sd 1,842 2 48.4% 17.9% 52.5% 27.6% 56.7% 64.7% 30.6% 54% 27.7%
25 Amaya, Miguel chc 985 2 50.3% 27.9% 53% 13.9% 57.6% 64.8% 44.7% 54.7% 28.6%
26 Jansen, Danny tor 1,854 2 47.7% 20.3% 53.7% 19.1% 69% 57.3% 35.3% 49.4% 20.5%
27 McGuire, Reese bos 1,409 1 48.1% 23.8% 57.6% 29% 63% 62.9% 34.8% 50.4% 17%
28 Barnes, Austin la 1,456 1 47.8% 9.7% 45.3% 16.4% 51.5% 74% 27% 54.2% 34.5%
29 Narváez, Omar nym 1,187 1 45.3% 20.5% 46.2% 26.4% 63.2% 59.2% 26.3% 47.6% 21%
30 Zunino, Mike cle 1,070 1 47.2% 26.2% 47.3% 18.6% 68.4% 56.1% 33.9% 52.9% 20.3%
31 Sabol, Blake sf 1,341 1 49% 20.2% 49% 27.7% 56.9% 74.7% 31.7% 50.9% 22.8%
32 Fermin, Freddy kc 1,660 1 47.6% 12.9% 47.9% 19% 60.1% 60.2% 43.1% 53.1% 27.4%
33 Rodríguez, Endy pit 1,380 0 46.8% 13.9% 54.4% 22% 62.6% 58.9% 37.2% 50% 22.5%
34 Wallach, Chad ana 1,282 0 46.3% 19.8% 42.3% 14.1% 60.4% 66.8% 36.8% 48.1% 29%
35 McCann, James bal 1,551 0 46.9% 21.4% 50% 29.2% 65.5% 58.7% 27.3% 52% 18.3%
36 Moreno, Gabriel ari 3,219 -1 45.6% 15% 38.1% 14.2% 57.8% 57.9% 33.2% 56.5% 26.5%
37 Thaiss, Matt ana 1,987 -1 46.4% 23.6% 48% 20% 54.7% 68.5% 22.6% 51.7% 25%
38 Kelly, Carson det 1,212 -1 45.9% 10.8% 54.9% 20% 59.3% 59% 35.2% 50.5% 13.6%
39 Bethancourt, Christian tb 2,505 -2 47% 25.5% 51.9% 26.7% 66.7% 57.4% 27.9% 51.7% 18.1%
40 Smith, Will la 3,143 -2 44.9% 13.4% 45.1% 21.2% 55.1% 65.1% 27.1% 55.9% 20.2%
41 Campusano, Luis sd 1,125 -2 45.1% 15.3% 39.9% 26.8% 49.5% 73.5% 20.9% 51.8% 29.1%
42 Maile, Luke cin 1,738 -2 42.3% 12.1% 56.4% 26.8% 54.6% 63.9% 20.4% 38.8% 13.5%
43 Haase, Eric cle 1,706 -2 46.3% 9.3% 42% 18.6% 59.7% 62.6% 30.4% 57.2% 25.1%
44 Murphy, Tom sea 1,016 -3 42.8% 13.1% 42.1% 25% 59.7% 51.6% 38.8% 49.4% 15.8%
45 Gomes, Yan chc 2,745 -3 44.1% 25.3% 50.7% 18.7% 59.1% 60.7% 29.8% 42.7% 19.5%
46 Nola, Austin sd 1,333 -3 43.1% 15.1% 50.5% 23.1% 55.3% 60.7% 23.2% 47.1% 20.7%
47 Mejía, Francisco tb 1,262 -4 43.5% 9% 49.7% 20% 58.7% 54.9% 25.2% 50.3% 26.7%
48 Knizner, Andrew stl 2,064 -4 44% 19.6% 59.8% 34.2% 60.7% 61.2% 25.2% 34.4% 12.8%
49 Jeffers, Ryan min 2,216 -4 44.3% 23.7% 55% 19.8% 59.2% 55.6% 30.3% 43.5% 17.1%
50 Herrera, Jose ari 1,228 -4 41.7% 20.5% 45.8% 30.9% 50.2% 64.6% 22.8% 40% 16.2%
51 Wong, Connor bos 3,073 -5 44% 12.5% 41.6% 26.7% 50.7% 69.7% 24.1% 48.5% 18.6%
52 Contreras, Willson stl 2,765 -5 44.3% 21.3% 50.4% 25.9% 59.8% 59.9% 26.4% 40.2% 18.5%
53 Stallings, Jacob mia 2,123 -5 44.1% 16.4% 44.9% 21.1% 55.1% 67.9% 32% 46% 18.1%
54 Adams, Riley was 1,209 -5 42.7% 18.3% 43.2% 23.1% 59.5% 64.4% 27.6% 43.7% 14.9%
55 O'Hoppe, Logan ana 1,458 -5 41.9% 21.4% 45.7% 12.9% 62.7% 50.5% 28.7% 47.1% 14.7%
56 Diaz, Yainer hou 1,339 -5 42% 16.4% 44.8% 20.3% 55.2% 62.6% 34.8% 44.5% 17.4%
57 Perez, Salvador kc 2,469 -7 43.9% 16.3% 48% 15.4% 60.2% 60.3% 29.2% 46.4% 20%
58 Langeliers, Shea oak 3,642 -8 44% 14.9% 44% 19.2% 49.4% 66.8% 27.1% 47.9% 25.1%
59 Díaz, Elias col 3,530 -8 43.2% 24.7% 61.2% 26.2% 63.4% 48.3% 28.2% 35.4% 11.9%
60 Stephenson, Tyler cin 2,436 -9 42% 27.2% 59.5% 33.3% 55.3% 51.5% 25% 35.8% 11.5%
61 Ruiz, Keibert was 3,676 -13 42.6% 23.1% 53.1% 24.4% 58.1% 58.7% 19.6% 39.6% 17.1%
62 Realmuto, J.T. phi 4,192 -14 43.9% 11.9% 48.2% 13.9% 61.8% 56.3% 31.3% 46% 20.5%
63 Maldonado, Martín hou 3,421 -17 41% 25.4% 46.9% 22.8% 53.5% 57.1% 21.9% 40.7% 15.1%