Minor League Musings

[Outshined_One]

41 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Does Mathis take like 5 pitches per game or an exorbitant % of called strikes? How do you maintain that rate and still carry a 27% K rate?

It's been discussed elsewhere, but Mathis works a ton of deep counts.  Some prognosticators see it as a good sign, because Mathis has exhibited really good judgment and selectivity (as referenced in the Xeet), but others have dinged him for it because he's been too passive and not swinging at hitters' pitches earlier in the count, which might be to blame for his high K rate.

I'm in wait-and-see mode with it.  I think he's entitled to a mulligan for last season since he was coming off of major surgery, and he's currently at a level where he's not seeing many competitive pitches on a regular basis.  We'll get a better handle on this as he advances through the minors.

The bigger issue I have is his future position, because I haven't seen any glowing comments about his defense at 3B and his ceiling plummets if he's going to end up as a 1B/DH.

[Jason Ross]

8 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

It's been discussed elsewhere, but Mathis works a ton of deep counts.  Some prognosticators see it as a good sign, because Mathis has exhibited really good judgment and selectivity (as referenced in the Xeet), but others have dinged him for it because he's been too passive and not swinging at hitters' pitches earlier in the count, which might be to blame for his high K rate.

I'm in wait-and-see mode with it.  I think he's entitled to a mulligan for last season since he was coming off of major surgery, and he's currently at a level where he's not seeing many competitive pitches on a regular basis.  We'll get a better handle on this as he advances through the minors.

The bigger issue I have is his future position, because I haven't seen any glowing comments about his defense at 3B and his ceiling plummets if he's going to end up as a 1B/DH.

This is about where I am at. I'm not super enthralled by the super passivity; there's a middle ground between being hyper aggressive and uber passive. Swinging at pitcher's strikes isn't good just like watching good pitches in hopes of the perfect pitch is bad. We can see this just looking at the difference between count leverage at the MLB level. When hitters get behind, especially with two strike counts, bad things happen far more than good ones. 

It's something I think you can learn, but I'd like to see him be a little less passive in the same ways I had hoped for years Pete Crow-Armstrong would be a little less aggressive. When Pete lets the game come to him he's just a better hitter and I think if Cole can take the bull by the horns a bit more, we'll see the best version of himself.

[craig]

The Mathis thing seems a bit like Hartshorn, too.  Yeah, kinda mixed on it.  Having a good eye, and knowing your game so you know what you can drive, that makes good sense.  But seems to me that if drive-hunting for in sub-sections, A-ball guys will hang enough and mis-locate that you can maybe get a statistically appealing power production in A.  But if you don't learn to hit other sectors of the zone, by the time you reach the majors, scouting reports will have you mapped, and pitchers will target the sectors you don't like.  Not sure it will project great.  

[Bertz]

He's slugging. 660 and has a .380 ISO (before a 1st inning double tonight) why are we just matter of factly assuming he's passive?

[Outshined_One]

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

He's slugging. 660 and has a .380 ISO (before a 1st inning double tonight) why are we just matter of factly assuming he's passive?

The K rate. Addressing craig's point, I'm less concerned about Hartshorn because he's a few years younger than Mathis and sports a much lower strikeout rate, which tells me he's selective, but has excellent pitch recognition skills.

Mathis has a great swinging strike rate, so it's not like he's hacking away at bad pitches, which is why I said I'm in wait and see mode with him. However, if he's consistently letting hittable pitches go, particularly for called strike 3, it makes me think there might (*might*) be some gaps in his game that could be exposed at higher levels.

[Bertz]

10 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

The K rate. Addressing craig's point, I'm less concerned about Hartshorn because he's a few years younger than Mathis and sports a much lower strikeout rate, which tells me he's selective, but has excellent pitch recognition skills.

Mathis has a great swinging strike rate, so it's not like he's hacking away at bad pitches, which is why I said I'm in wait and see mode with him. However, if he's consistently letting hittable pitches go, particularly for called strike 3, it makes me think there might (*might*) be some gaps in his game that could be exposed at higher levels.

Do we have any reason to think that's the case though?  Again he's ISOing .380 on the season.

[Jason Ross]

7 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Do we have any reason to think that's the case though?  Again he's ISOing .380 on the season.

From Fangraphs' Eric Logengagen's recent report on Mathis:

Quote

While his raw contact skill is plus, Mathis’ very passive approach, along with a lot of two-strike expansion for his experience level, has caused him to run elevated strikeout rates in pro ball

Source

[Bertz]

58 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

From Fangraphs' Eric Logengagen's recent report on Mathis:

Source

So if he was less passive what would he be doing better?  Like obviously the K's would come down, but the walks obviously would too.  Is 16% BB/26% K worse than something more like 10 and 20?  With a passive approach you're worried about letting hittable pitches go by...but what evidence do we have that's happening?  A mid .600's slug and an ISO tickling .400 are top of the scale marks, and Cole is not even a guy with top of the scale raw power.  I'm failing to see any sort of opportunity cost with this current approach.

It's okay to not be in on Mathis.  RHH 1B is one of the least valuable demographics for a prospect, there's a lengthy injury history, and he's not especially tooled up.  But if we're poo-pooing any part of what he's done in the batters box in 2026 I think we're setting the bar preposterously high.

There's also some definite you're sweet/hello human resources to Mathis and Kane Kepley's approaches but I'll try to leave that one be.  Talking about Kepley too much makes me start sounding like Tom.

[Jason Ross]

6 hours ago, Bertz said:

So if he was less passive what would he be doing better?  Like obviously the K's would come down, but the walks obviously would too.  Is 16% BB/26% K worse than something more like 10 and 20?  With a passive approach you're worried about letting hittable pitches go by...but what evidence do we have that's happening?  A mid .600's slug and an ISO tickling .400 are top of the scale marks, and Cole is not even a guy with top of the scale raw power.  I'm failing to see any sort of opportunity cost with this current approach.

It's okay to not be in on Mathis.  RHH 1B is one of the least valuable demographics for a prospect, there's a lengthy injury history, and he's not especially tooled up.  But if we're poo-pooing any part of what he's done in the batters box in 2026 I think we're setting the bar preposterously high.

There's also some definite you're sweet/hello human resources to Mathis and Kane Kepley's approaches but I'll try to leave that one be.  Talking about Kepley too much makes me start sounding like Tom.

So, to be fair, I never said I was out on Mathis. What I said was "I'm not super enthralled by the super-passivity" and then explained why, then showed when asked where there was any reason to believe he was super passive. There's a lot of ground between "out" and "I think the best version of this player is elsewhere" and Mathis' data is probably hiding that issue to a decent degree. It's that I think as he graduates level over level that this passivity will be more easily exploited but at High-A I don't trust pitchers that much to really exploit these things consistently. 

For example, I'm going to go back to the hitter I also brought up, which is Pete Crow-Armstrong. At South Bend and Knoxville, Pete kept his K% under 25%: that's a good thing. By Double-A he kept the K% the same, doubled his walk rate, and kept an ISO of .238. But what was hiding under that the entire time was the hyper aggressivity. Even last year Pete kept an 82% zone-contact rate; But eventually, pitchers get better and take your hyper aggressive ability and help you get yourself out. 

Cole Mathis isn't hyper aggressive. And you're right, today, the K% seems to be the one thing suffering. But the passivity he shows is something I very much think will be something that better pitchers (and pitchers more capable than High-A arms) will use against him. And I think that's a point of polish for Cole Mathis, especially considering he isn't likely to make his mark on an MLB team in very many (if any) ways outside of the bat. And clearly I'm not the only who who thinks that, as Eric Logenhagen pointed out the same thing. 

While I won't put words in your mouth, you may be of the "well it's not a problem today so I'm not sure I'm going to worry about it" mantra, and that's fine, it may be a concern about nothing. But the counter to that is being pro-active and finding a polish and working on it before it becomes a problem, as well. And I'm going to fit into the latter ground myself. It's also fair to point out the argument against that to that is "maybe you fix what isn't broke" (my argument to that would be he's running elevated K% at both South Bend and Myrtle this year and while it's just May 8th, I do believe that's an early warning sign - but I'll refrain from having a fictional back and forth here).

Honestly, I've been fairly high on Mathis dating back to the draft day. I like Mathis today. I think I can both like Mathis and point out a point of polish going forward for him. As we see today, when Pete Crow-Armstrong is the best version of himself at the plate, his hyper aggressive attitude seems to melt away for a bit and the guy we all wish he could be every day comes out. Much like that, I'd like to see Mathis trend a bit more in the other way; not because right now he's necessarily struggling at South Bend but as I feared with Pete in the same way; the concern is that better pitchers will be able to exploit this more often. And better pitchers did eventually exploit Pete Crow-Armstrong's hyper aggressivity and the solution has been "be more controlled". While different, I think Mathis probably needs to come back to the goldilocks zone to find the best version of himself at higher level, too.

As it pertains to Kepley; I've mostly stayed out of Kepley Mania. I'd rank him higher than Cole simply because I think his path to MLB relevancy is easier with position. defense and speed in his favor, but I'm lower on him than many on the board. Not really all that important but did want to address that point that I think was more "to the world" and less "to me" but wanted to be as clear as possible, too.

[craig]

Bertz, I'm not sure about the "too passive" stuff, think your points are VERY well taken.  Couple thoughts:

1. Passive:  If "passive" is just an approach pejorative, I agree that's meaningless.  Guy has barely 200 A-ball AB's, the easiest developmental adjustment in the game is to swing more, swing earlier.  "I'll plan to swing at the first pitch if it's a strike today" is the simplest adjustment in the game, *if* doing so would actually be to his advantage.  
2. "Passive" = holes?  For Longenhagen, "passive" may be code for "holes in strike zone?"  The scouting concern isn't the swing frequency, it's the concern that he takes so many strikes because there are too many sectors that he can't handle.  It's that his existing swing can't effectively hit enough of the strike zone; so he's taking lots of strikes because he doesn't have the ability to hit those strikes.  The scouting/projection concerns may be the perceived holes in his strike zone which cause so many takes?  
3. Developmental:  Maybe if he was more aggressive, he'd get better developmental practice hitting pitches that aren't in his best sectors?  Which could hypothetically pay off at higher levels, such as the National League?  *IF* he's got too many holes, perhaps developmentally he'd be well served to still practice hitting those and covering those, even if for now that may not help his stats?  
4. 2-strike hitting:  Not many guys have great slug on 2-strike pitches.  As excellent as are his current hitting numbers, might they be even better if he was smashing more first-pitch strikes?  Maybe not taking so many strikes, would result in:  decline in walks and K's; increase in BABIP, BA, HR's, and slug?  As good as slug is, might it get even higher?  
5. Guess-hitting:  Most big-league sluggers do some guess-hitting, and sometimes guess wrong.  Maybe doing more intelligent guess-hitting might boost HR even if it came at the expense of a higher swing-strike %?  I'm not arguing so, I have no idea.  Just trying to think and process thoughts!  :):)  

[craig]

It's kinda funny having Mathis and Kepley both getting referenced.  I haven't tracked that discussion, I guess, so don't know where you guys are going with that.  Such contrasting guys, a big DH/1B HR-slugger and a short speed/defense no-HR guy, they don't seem in the same world.  Both share 2nd-round. 

I guess the commonality between Mathis, Kepley, and Hartshorn is the deep-count, take-strikes, walk-oriented approach.  So I guess some of the same questions, both developmental and strategic, apply. 

1. Strategically, do the extra walks and the selective hitting outweigh the consequences of facing more 2-strike counts? 
2. Developmentally, is swinging at pitches I like best developmentally, or should I practice hitting strikes I don't like, because that's what big-league pitchers will mostly try to throw?  

 

[We Got The Whole 9]

The "power" will come for Kepley. He only needs to hit 5-10 HR. Kwan was a 3 war player with a 5 HR season and damn near a 5 win player with 6 in his rookie season. I expect Kepley would provide more bsr and potentially defensive value as well. The height is less of a concern these days. Freaking Frelick managed a 115 last year and was 3.5. Pretty similar to Kepley as a prospect, Offensively.

 

IDK, I'm overzealous, and he will almost certainly never take an AB as a Cub but this dude has just about a half seasons worth of PA as a pro and has:

 

15 XBH, 30 SB, 54:31 BBK, 15 HBP, 2 GDP, ludicrous LD rates with really low GB. He's a dirtbag and a really fun player to root for. 

[CaliforniaRaisin]

It was a side comment so I don't want to dwell on it too much but when it comes to power, I think the 12 lbs and especially 1" Sal Frelick has on Kane are a huge difference on the margins for HR power.

[We Got The Whole 9]

41 minutes ago, CaliforniaRaisin said:

It was a side comment so I don't want to dwell on it too much but when it comes to power, I think the 12 lbs and especially 1" Sal Frelick has on Kane are a huge difference on the margins for HR power.

Fair. Although I don't believe the height makes much of an advantage and this assumes Kepley won't put on any muscle. When hes at the MLB level i doubt they will look much different.

[craig]

On Kepley, I think the BABIP will be really important.  BABIP, like all hitting numbers, is lower with 2 strikes than with none or one. 

• As a line-drive contact guy with speed, one might think he could support a good BABIP. 
• As a guy facing an inordinate ratio of 2-strike counts, his BABIP could be relatively low. 
• Likewise the K-rate will be really important.  He can be a nice contact guy, but putting yourself into 2-strike counts, better pitchers should K him more and more.  

Just to play with some numbers. 

• BABIP .300; K 20% of AB (for my math, I'm doing it relative to AB, not PA); 0 HR => BA .240.  Supposed 75 BB/HBP vs 500AB => .339 OBP.  
• BABIP .300; K 15% of AB; 0 HR => BA .255.  
• BABIP .280; K 20% of AB; 0 HR => BA .224. 
• BABIP .320, K 15% of AB; 5 HR (in 500 AB) => .282 BA.  Suppose 75 BB/HBP vs 500AB => .376 OBP.  

I'm just tinkering around for my own fun.  But it's a reminder that stats can swing a LOT on BABIP, K-rate, and even a few HRs.  

 

[CaliforniaRaisin]

7 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Fair. Although I don't believe the height makes much of an advantage and this assumes Kepley won't put on any muscle. When hes at the MLB level i doubt they will look much different.

I'm working from an extremely rudimentary view that the extra inch allowed Frelick to add extra muscle more easily.

Also, Kepley is already well-built and wouldn't be confused for Bateman or Southisene so there might not be much more muscle-gain for him.