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.