Today’s Yasiel Puig hilarity: he’s apparently a “poor man’s Jeff Francoeur”

47 Comments

Buzzfeed has waded knee-deep into derp:

source:

See, the thing about this is that while “hype in social media age” can, indeed, be tricky, baseball players are not properly assessed by their “hype in the social media age.” “Sharknado” got a lot of hype in the social media age too. No one has mistaken it for a good movie.

Likewise, no one who knows anything about baseball thinks that Yasiel Puig is anything akin to “a poor man’s Jeff Francoeur.” While raw and while, on occasion, known to chase bad pitches, that’s pretty much where the comparisons stop. No one chases bad pitches like Francoeur. Puig’s power is immense and natural and his home run stroke is not dependent upon guessing so often like Francoeur’s is.  He has shown some patience as well. At the moment he has 23 walks in 296 plate appearances in his age 22 season. Francoeur walked 23 times in his age-22 season. In 686 plate appearances.

But such comparisons seem silly because it’s simply undeniable that Puig is the better player than Francoeur ever was at any time in his minor or major league career and has the potential to be much, much better. We cheapen him with a comparison based on the most superficial first impression of each and the “hype in the social media age” stuff. Even at the time of his 2005 breakout most observers knew that Francoeur was playing way above his head. Most observers now likewise believe that — though his current stat line is a bit inflated by a fast start — Puig is not doing anything that is truly unexpected.

So, yes, it’s an unfair comp. It’s like clicking on the Buzzfeed article in question, seeing lots of pictures and large text and thinking that it’s a publication aimed at preschoolers.

And that’s not the case at all, is it?

Must-Click Link: Mets owners are cheap, unaccountable and unconcerned

Getty Images
2 Comments

Marc Carig of Newsday took Mets owners Fred and Jeff Wilpon to the woodshed over the weekend. He, quite justifiably, lambasted them for their inexplicable frugality, their seeming indifference to wanting to put a winning team on the field and, above all else, their unwillingness to level with the fans or the press about the team’s plans or priorities.

Mets ownership is unaccountable, Carig argues, asking everything of fans and giving nothing in the way of a plan or even hope in return:

Mets fans ought to know where their money is going, because it’s clear that much of it isn’t ending up on the field . . . They never talk about money. Whether it’s arrogance or simply negligence, they have no problem asking fans to pony up the cash and never show the willingness to reciprocate.

And they’re not just failing to be forthcoming with the fans. Even the front office is in the dark about the direction of the team at any given time:

According to sources, the front office has only a fuzzy idea of what they actually have to spend in any given offseason. They’re often flying blind, forced to navigate the winter under the weight of an invisible salary cap. This is not the behavior of a franchise that wants to win.

Carig is not a hot take artist and is not usually one to rip a team or its ownership like this. As such, it should not be read as a columnist just looking to bash the Wilpons on a slow news day. To the contrary, this reads like something well-considered and a long time in the works. It has the added benefit of being 100% true and justified. The Mets have been run like a third rate operation for years. Even when the product on the field is good, fans have no confidence that ownership will do what it takes to maintain that success.

All that seems to matter to the Wilpons is the bottom line and everything flows from there. They may as well be making sewing machines or selling furniture.