Why Sal Frelick Has Become a Catcher Interference Machine

After striking the mitt of Ryan Jeffers in the eighth inning of Saturday’s extra-inning win over the Twins, Sal Frelick is tied for the major-league lead in reaching base on catcher interference. Frelick has been awarded first base three such times this year, plus a single in Colorado three weeks ago that saw his swing hit both the mitt and the pitch. Had the Brewers elected to take that interference call, Frelick would stand alone atop the leaderboard.

Each instance has transpired since Jun. 21, a sequence in which Frelick clipped a catcher’s mitt four times in 74 plate appearances. He has become a magnet for what is typically a novelty baseball event.

Occurrences of catcher interference have risen sharply across baseball in recent years, as catchers have inched closer to the plate to optimize receiving. From 2008 through 2017, it happened no more than nine times each season. That total jumped from 12 in 2018 to 60 in 2019 and has steadily increased since. There were 95 catcher interference calls last year, and the tally figures to climb into triple digits this year. It’s now happening on 0.03% of swings, the highest rate in the pitch-tracking era.

Still, Frelick’s knack for catching the mitt with his swing stands out. It’s nothing new for him, either.

“My whole life,” he said. “In college, in the minors, it happened a ton.”

There’s a reason for that. It is rooted in Frelick’s skill set and approach as a hitter. He has short levers and a compact swing, geared toward making contact. Those traits enable him to spoil pitches in two-strike counts, which is when his bat most often meets the catcher’s outstretched mitt.

“Sometimes I get beat with a curveball or a slider that’s backdoor, and I give up on it early, but then I’m like, ‘Oh, it’s coming back,’” Frelick explained. “I really know I can foul that pitch off, even if it’s just straight into our dugout. I’m just trying to spoil it. I think every one I’ve had has been that specific pitch.”

His estimation is close. One of the interference calls came on a cutter away, as did his single in Colorado. Another was on a sweeping slider.

Ironically, Frelick’s first catcher interference call of the year came on a fastball away, but a similar explanation is behind it. He was late in properly identifying a pitch about to clip the outside corner, so he slashed at it to fight it off.

“You’re sitting on a breaking ball sometimes, and you get fooled by a heater,” Pat Murphy said. “And the ball travels, and you know you’re going to shoot it to left field, and bam! The catcher’s glove is right there.”

“I just kind of give up on a pitch early, those backdoor ones, and then you notice it’s coming back and just try to fight,” Frelick said. “That’s usually when it happens.”

Some opponents have taken some level of notice. Frelick has seen catchers move back in the box during subsequent plate appearances following interference.

“It kind of opens it up for me,” he said. “If I’m going to keep trying to spoil those pitches, they’re going to have to give in at some point and be like, ‘I can’t really go get this pitch and frame it.’”

Murphy remembers the Brewers making such an adjustment against at least one hitter during his time with the club.

“It was a player on the other team that we had to say, ‘Hey, move back, catchers.’ And it was also a left-handed hitter.”

The occasional ability to force catchers into less optimal receiving positions is never a negative, but its infrequency means it lacks discernible value in a large sample. Frelick knows he’s more prone to catcher interference than others, and why, but he does not consider it a tool in his offensive arsenal or a means of providing value to his team.

“Not something I’m actively trying to do,” he said. “I would like to hit those balls, instead of getting fooled on them and having to battle.”

“There’s no way you can do that on purpose,” Murphy said. “You really can’t.”

It will probably happen a few more times this year, though. It's not intentional, but that doesn't exactly mean it's a fluke.