Newsflash: Wright's Strikeout Numbers Are Alarming
BY MICHAEL GANCI
David Wright is quickly becoming the face of the franchise in New York, and why not? He is built for the job. He is handsome, says the right thing all the time and he shows by example on the field, much like the guy across the river in Yankee Stadium does.
Wright also hits around .300 every year and is good for his 25 homers, 100 RBI, and 40 doubles, which makes him a very dangerous hitter.
With two consecutive gold gloves to add to that resume, one would be surprised to have the fans asking for even more, but that is exactly what I am here to do.
Wright needs to cut down on the strikeouts, which is a problem for him that doesn’t seem to be going away.
Initially, Wright seemed to be one of those players that wouldn’t strike out much at all. Gary Cohen used to say it perfectly. With two strikes, the at-bat would just begin.
But, that isn’t the case anymore. Wright is now known to lunge at pitches out of the strike zone, and he even gets caught looking more times than I would like to admit.
Over the past couple of years, Wright has become very pull-happy, which has led to him being vulnerable away, and pitchers have picked up on that.
Wright is currently hitting .323, which is a good number at this point in the season, but the strikeout numbers are quite eye-popping.
In just 31 at-bats, Wright has already struck out 11 times, two of which came last night. He should be a guy that strikes out around 75 times maximum in a season, but he is already more than 10 percent there.
In laments terms, if Wright batted 600 times in 2009, he is on pace for about 212 strikeouts, which is something the Mets do not want to see.
The scary thing, is that Wright is still a positive impact on this team. Could you imagine how valuable he will become if he can work out the strikeout problem?
He could potentially become a top two or three player in all of baseball.
Come on Wright. We all know you can do it.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?