Skip to content

A woman is suing the Phillie Phanatic

Jun 12, 2012, 2:00 PM EDT

Phanatic

A woman named Suzanne Peirce was minding her own business when, according to the complaint she recently filed, she was attacked by the Phillie Phanatic, who picked her up and threw her into a hotel pool:

Peirce claims she hurt just about everything in the incident, including suffering “severe and permanent injuries to her head, neck, back, body, arms and legs, bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves and tissues …” and more. The pool did have water in it, attorney Aaron Denker said, though Peirce was tossed in the shallow end.

The plaintiff says that she has spent a lot of money on medicine and medical attention and that she has suffered from “humiliation and loss of life’s pleasures.”

Her lawyer mentions that she’s a Phillies fan, but after reading the stuff about “humiliation and loss of life’s pleasures,” I figured that went without saying.

  1. jlovenotjlo - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:05 PM

    I bet it’s the same lady who put her 5 year old in the sun tan booth in New Jersey. What’s going on over there?

    • captainwisdom8888 - Jun 12, 2012 at 7:49 PM

      EVERYONE IS SUE-HAPPY THESE DAYS. HERES SOME WORDS OF WISDOM. GET A JOB. SUPPORT YOURSELF AND STOP LOOKING FOR A FREE HANDOUT. WEAK ASS NONSENSE

      • captainwisdom8888 - Jun 12, 2012 at 7:54 PM

        sorry for the caps lock. The phillie fanatic is one of the best mascots in sports. Barring an imposter who power bombed this woman in a 2ft baby pool, this woman is full of sh**

  2. dirkified - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:07 PM

    the real story.. she was bumped and fell into the shallow end of a pool, got out and was yelling.. Now a lawyer talks to her and she can no longer feed herself, has brain damage, and requires a driver to drive her to locations “pun intended” GET A LIFE LADY!! I hope the judge dismisses this case

    • thefalcon123 - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM

      I know, it must be ridiuclous cause it sounds so silly. Like that lady who burned herself with McDonalds coffee and then had the gall to sue McDonalds!

      Oh wait…turns out the Mcdonalds coffee lady had *3rd degree burns* on her pelvis, was in the hospital for 8 days had to have skin grafts. She then tried to settle with McDonalds to just have them pay her medical bills….McDonalds offered her $800. That McDonalds had also been repeatedly warned about the temperature at which their coffee was served…nearly 200 degree…and subsequently dropped it to a less horrible burning temp of 140.

      Odds are, this lawsuit is silly, don’t get me wrong. But just because it seems so on the surface doesn’t mean it is without merit. It’s possible she really did get severely injured. If not, may she lose badly…if so, let’s not all rush to judgement just because it sounds weird.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM

        Falcon: Are you seriously trying to defend that lady’s lawsuit against McDonalds?
        If so…WOW.
        I mean…I knew you hung out way…waaay on the left side of things but…damn.
        I better stop right now. Otherwise, I am going to be required to write you a check immediately.

      • Craig Calcaterra - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:33 PM

        The suit is highly defensible, stlouis.

        As an attorney I mostly defended corporations from such suits. I studied that one extensively, however, and it is beyond clear that the suit was justified. McDonalds was made aware of a danger that was unreasonable. They ignored the dangers willingly. The danger resulted in extreme injuries. That is the textbook definition of civil liability. And again, this is coming from someone who spent 11 years fighting such suits and someone who remains skeptical of them.

        We all want to make fun of it because “ha! who spills their coffee and sues someone else for it!” but to do so in the McDonald’s coffee case is to be totally ignorant of the actual facts and the relevant law.

      • cnbweb - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:47 PM

        stlouis1baseball just got majorly PW3NED by Calcaterra!

      • term3186 - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:51 PM

        Craig and gyrfalcon are both perfectly correct. The coffee lawsuit sounds crazy on its face, but once you get down into the facts, it’s not a crazy case at all. Let’s bust some more myths while we’re at it.

        http://www.cracked.com/article_19150_6-famous-frivolous-lawsuit-stories-that-are-total-b.s..html

      • deathmonkey41 - Jun 12, 2012 at 4:52 PM

        So, she wouldn’t have burned herself had she been driving with 140 degree coffee between her legs?

      • Craig Calcaterra - Jun 12, 2012 at 5:02 PM

        No, she wouldn’t have. If you read the relevant information — of which was present at trial, testified to by scientific experts — a 2-3 second exposure to 200 degree coffee can cause 3rd degree burns. Even extended exposure to 140 degree coffee does nothing of the sort.

        You would be wise to let your kneejerk assumptions here go and educate yourself.

      • deathmonkey41 - Jun 12, 2012 at 5:17 PM

        The woman used very little common sense and was successful in blaming someone else for it. I don’t care if it’s 140 or 200 degrees- I wouldn’t put it between my legs while I’m driving, but hey, that’s just me.

      • localbandhero - Jun 12, 2012 at 5:28 PM

        Again…read the information of the suit.

        She was not driving. She was in the passenger seat of the vehicle. Also, the vehicle was parked when the incident occurred.

        So much misinformation out there about this case, and so many people like jumping on it when they know none of the details.

      • deathmonkey41 - Jun 12, 2012 at 5:36 PM

        I get coffee from WaWa every morning. I’m sure it’s under the scalding temperature (especially after the McDonald’s lawsuit) and I still can’t hold the cup without a sleeve. There is no way that cup goes between my legs (parked or driving) because I have enough common sense to know I don’t want hot liquid near my skin. If her coffee was at almost 200 degrees, she must have felt that it was incredibly hot through the cardboard cup, but still decided to stick it between her knees and remove the lid. I see that they deducted $40K from her lawsuit for her own neglience and I really don’t have a problem with forcing McDonalds to pay the medical bills, but the punitive damages rewarded were ridiculous and apparently a judge agreed with me because he knocked it down to $400K, which is still ridiculous to reward someone for acting in a careless manner.

      • Craig Calcaterra - Jun 12, 2012 at 5:40 PM

        So you think it’s bad when someone is cognizant of a risk yet still persists in the dangerous behavior?

        Good. Because that’s exactly what the jury found McDonalds to have done. It was established as a legal fact that 200 degree coffee was inherently dangerous. It was established that McDonalds knew this to be the case beforehand. It was established that they willingly disregarded the risk and did it anyway because they had financial reasons to do so. Then that decision contributed to an 80 year old woman getting third degree burns and needing skin grafts.

        Now, if the woman is to be lambasted for ignoring a risk, why shouldn’t McDonalds?

      • deathmonkey41 - Jun 12, 2012 at 5:51 PM

        I said I had no problem with forcing McDonald’s to pay the medical bills and I’m not even opposed punitive damages in the case. The amount of punitive damages was excessive- even after the judge reduced it. Had a McDonald’s employee spilled it on her or had the cup been poorly constructed and fell apart while she was carrying or drinking it, that’s a different story. I could see her being awarded that $400K, but no matter how you slice it, she spilled the coffee on herself because she was negligent.

      • localbandhero - Jun 12, 2012 at 5:52 PM

        She also originally asked for $20,000. That’s it.

        The jury jacked it up, and then it got knocked down because it was decided she was 20% at fault. That’s how civil cases work, as opposed to criminal. Criminal requires “Unreasonable doubt.” With Civil cases, it’s a Preponderance of the Evidence…meaning who was more at fault.

      • umrguy42 - Jun 12, 2012 at 5:57 PM

        Wasn’t the coffee also in the wrong cup? I worked for 5 years at a McDonald’s, and if it was in the wrong cup, AND 200 degrees – you’d think she’d’ve stopped at the heat seeping through the cup. Gotta be honest, I’m with deathmonkey – yes, the McDonald’s was at some fault, but… wtf are you doing with hot coffee in your LAP? The cups are flimsy even when they’re the right ones…

      • Craig Calcaterra - Jun 12, 2012 at 6:01 PM

        Punitive damages are meant to punish. Punishment is aimed at the transgressor. In this case McDonalds was found to be the transgressor. McDonalds is one of the largest corporations on the planet and to them $400K is minuscule to the point of utter insignificance.

        Even lower than that? At some point, because the coffee temperature was a financial consideration (could make coffee less often and sell more of it at 200 than 140), that a lower damages award creates and incentive to continue to make it at 200 degrees. What if they make $100K by selling 200 degree coffee? Hmm … maybe a $50K damages award is worth the risk …

        The point here is that the $400K was not to make the plaintiff whole. That’s what the medical bills award was for, so there is no need for the punitive damages award to bear a relationship to her behavior at all. It should be solely calculated to punish and deter McDonalds. Which, in this case, it did.

      • chadjones27 - Jun 12, 2012 at 8:14 PM

        Craig, honest question here. I understand the woman was awarded the payment of medical bills. And good explanation of why the $400K was awarded. But why was the plaintiff awarded that much above medical payments? I’m assuming that the money would have had to go somewhere (someone) since the courts can’t just make them donate it. If that’s the case, I guess the corporation wins (tax-write-off).
        And for the record, I now can’t use McDonald’s coffee lady as the butt of silly lawsuit jokes.

      • deathmonkey41 - Jun 12, 2012 at 8:29 PM

        Similar lawsuits against McDonald’s in the United Kingdom failed. In Bogle v. McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd., Field, J. rejected the claim that McDonald’s could have avoided injury by serving coffee at a lower temperature.

        “If this submission be right, McDonald’s should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 °C and 60 °C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 °C and 95 °C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 °C and 60 °C would not have been acceptable to McDonald’s customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 °C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled.”[17]

        Other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin’ Donuts, Wendy’s and Burger King have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.

        Liebeck’s attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defend the lawsuit by claiming that McDonald’s reduced the temperature of their coffee after the suit. Morgan has since brought other lawsuits against McDonald’s over hot-coffee burns.[21] McDonald’s policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[22] relying on more sternly-worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[22][23] The Specialty Coffee Association supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served.[21] The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[24]

        Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 °F (82 °C) in this case) is not “unreasonably dangerous”.

        The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 °F [93 °C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 °F [66–71 °C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 °F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid’s temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

      • anxovies - Jun 13, 2012 at 11:46 AM

        The McDonald’s case happened here in New Mexico. The judge was Robert Scott, now a federal magistrate, who was known for favoring the defense. He reduced the jury verdict of $2.7 million to $480,000 (3 times the actual damages including meds) for a total award of $640K. Both parties appealed and settled during the appeal. I heard that the settlement was for around $400K. The lady was burned very badly and had permanent scarring on her thighs. I had a very similar case involving a cafeteria and hot water for tea a couple of years before. At the time it didn’t seem like such a great case and we settled for a fraction of the $640K in the McDonald’s case. If only.

  3. cur68 - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:09 PM

    Told ya that thing was on Dykstra’s left over ‘roids. I say cage match to the death between plaintiff and Phanatic: Dykstra managing the Phanatic, Canseco the Plaintiff, and Darren Daulton as the ref. I bet the Nature Boy would approve of this form of swift justice. Wooooo!
    Can’t go to trial with this y’see. The courts are tied up prosecuting more important stuff, like Clemens and Bonds.

  4. number42is1 - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:12 PM

    “Her lawyer mentions that she’s a Phillies fan, but after reading the stuff about “humiliation and loss of life’s pleasures,” I figured that went without saying.”

    Well done craig… Well done… let the bitching commence.

    • CJ - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:13 PM

      actually, I thought that was one of his weaker attempts. I expected better coming from you, Craig!

  5. thefalcon123 - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM

    What is the Philly Phanatic doing at a Jersey Shore hotel tossing people into pools for? There’s just so much I don’t know about the world of professional baseball mascotting.

    • chadjones27 - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:30 PM

      Filming next season’s “Jersey Shore”?
      Maybe he’s taking Snookie’s place. Same shape.

      • Utley's Hair - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

        And he doesn’t wear pants, either.

    • flyspe - Jun 14, 2012 at 3:12 PM

      Both were there trying to get it in. She was probably a grenade, so the Phanatic chucked her in the pool. Once in the pool she exploded, as most grenades do when thrown.

  6. El Bravo - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:16 PM

    Craig Calcaterra is the mothaf@ckin man.

  7. papalurchdxb - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM

    i’m guessing by the date of the filing she has only 4 weeks left to ‘use it or lose it’? and her attorney didn’t want to lose it…

  8. The Common Man - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:19 PM

    The Philly Phanatic: Still more valuable than Ryan Howard and Chase Utley in 2012.

    • aclassyguyfromaclassytown - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:20 PM

      Good one.

  9. Jonny 5 - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM

    Wow, she’d have been better off crashing her car into brick wall. But then again the world would more than likely be a better place if she just drove that car into a bridge abutment.

    “severe and permanent injuries to her head, neck, back, body, arms and legs, bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves and tissues … and more.”

    From being tossed into a pool? ” and more” What else is there? Toes? hair? nose?

    • heyblueyoustink - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:25 PM

      Her common sense and decency.

      • Utley's Hair - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:26 PM

        I’d say dignity, but, well, ya know…

      • umrguy42 - Jun 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM

        Gone long, long before?

      • fearlessleader - Jun 12, 2012 at 6:20 PM

        Interesting that no one has anything to say about the common sense or decency of the guy in the Phanatic costume, who, if this story is even a little bit true, was stupid and offensive enough to throw a woman into a pool against her will.

        None of us knows the facts here, but how refreshing that the HBT jury has already decided that the purported victim is a skanky liar.

    • Utley's Hair - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:25 PM

      Loss of life’s pleasures? Maybe there’s more to this story that isn’t being divulged….

  10. heyblueyoustink - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:23 PM

    I hear she’s also got a lawsuit going against the Easter Bunny for not making choke proof Easter Eggs and Santa for eating her cookies and causing “Incredible Mental Anguish”

    • fearlessleader - Jun 12, 2012 at 6:23 PM

      Ha! Ha! Ha! Because eating cookies and being assaulted are totally the same thing! Hilarious!

  11. Utley's Hair - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:24 PM

    Hey, if the Phanatic tossed her in a pool, maybe she deserved it.

    As for the comment at the end? —Sigh—

    • heyblueyoustink - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM

      Well, in this litigious society, I mean you know how those lawyers can be. And you know they’re probably brainwashed during law school to dig at the very fiber of anyone’s existence to their benefit.

      Once they drink the lawyer Kool Aid, it never leaves. it’s always in their blood.

  12. deathmonkey41 - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM

    She should have just spilled hot coffee on herself and called it a day.

    • thefalcon123 - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:09 PM

      I mentioned this in a post above and it bears repeating. The McDonalds hot coffee case was 100% justified.

      Oh wait…turns out the Mcdonalds coffee lady had *3rd degree burns* on her pelvis, was in the hospital for 8 days had to have skin grafts. She then tried to settle with McDonalds to just have them pay her medical bills….McDonalds offered her $800. That McDonalds had also been repeatedly warned about the temperature at which their coffee was served…nearly 200 degree…and subsequently dropped it to a less horrible burning temp of 140.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:32 PM

        Hey look people…the very first person (NOT related to spilled coffee lady)…who thinks her frivolous lawsuit was justified. Please don’t disagree or you will be required to buy Falcon’s groceries for a Month.

      • cnbweb - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:51 PM

        stlouis1baseball – You FAIL at sarcasm. You got PW3NED by Craig and now you are trying to defend your ignorant statements. Typical Cardinals fan…ha!!!

      • aclassyguyfromaclassytown - Jun 12, 2012 at 4:25 PM

        Hey cnbweb, you come off as an idiot when speaking internet. You sound like a 13 year old girl who’s texting. This goes for everyone who writes like that, not just you.

      • deathmonkey41 - Jun 12, 2012 at 4:50 PM

        She had 3rd degree burns on her pelvis because she decided to put a cup full of hot coffee between her legs while she was driving…but you’re right, that was probably McDonald’s fault. Sorry, read all the lawyers, who live off proceeds from frivilious lawsuits, justifications for the lawsuit and I’m not buying it. Just another example of how personal responsibility has been thrown by the wayside.

      • gammagammahey - Jun 12, 2012 at 5:12 PM

        Saying that she was holding the coffee between her legs while driving demonstrates that you haven’t read any of the actual facts of the case. She wasn’t driving, she was in the passenger seat and the car was parked. If the coffee had been at a reasonable temperature, she would have had time to be able to avoid getting burned.

      • chadjones27 - Jun 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM

        I may be twice the age of someone who should know this, but, cnbweb, shouldn’t it be PWN3D?

  13. danielcp0303 - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:44 PM

    “Loss of life’s pleasures”

    So she doesn’t have feeling in her special area anymore?

    • startedin67 - Jun 12, 2012 at 4:32 PM

      I….think it means she’s unable to savor a fine Scotch, see the beauty in a gorgeous sunset, be charmed by fuzzy ducklings, enjoy a good steak, smoke an expensive cigar, shed a tear at the sappy ending of a feel-good movie, or cheer at a walk-off grand slam.

      But I could be wrong. It’s happened before.

  14. stex52 - Jun 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM

    If she really wants to feel humiliation and loss of life’s pleasures, she should be on HBT reading what we have to say about her.

    Good shots, guys.

  15. leerosenthall - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:01 PM

    If what the plaintiff alleges is actually true, then I suppose she’s due her day in court, but count me skeptical. Surely in this day and age somebody caught that incident on video. I’d like to see what *really* happened.

    As for Craig’s editorial comments at the end, I can barely stir up a yawn. Sweetheart, you’re so predictable … not only didn’t they rile me up, they suggest your in need of some new material. I’ll let your fanboys choose the victim.

    • leerosenthall - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:02 PM

      *you’re*

      • leerosenthall - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM

        Who the hell gives a thumbs down to correct grammar? A Phillies fan, no doubt. [heavy sigh]

  16. eaglesw00t - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:16 PM

    I really want to hear the full details on this case.

    If it turns out this woman is just looking for a payday, she should be liable for all legal costs, as well as the cost of the courtroom, and the pay for all civil employees for the duration of this “case”

    People who make false accusations should be held double accountable for what the crime would have done. Lets knock some phony cases out of courtrooms.

  17. sportsdrenched.com - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:18 PM

    Sluggerrr knows a lawyer from that time he got sued for shooting a dude in the eye with the hotdog gun.

  18. aclassyguyfromaclassytown - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:21 PM

    Probably just looking for a pay day. Just like that lady from Mcdonalds that burned herself with her coffee…………………

    • leerosenthall - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:35 PM

      Give it a rest already! The McDonald’s suit was absolutely justified:

      http://centerjd.org/content/faq-about-mcdonald%E2%80%99s-coffee-case-and-use-fabricated-anecdotes

      • stlouis1baseball - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:44 PM

        I stand corrected. Look people…the SECOND person (NOT related to spilled coffee lady)…who thinks her frivolous lawsuit was justified.
        Alright…I am logging off now for fear of being sued.

      • aclassyguyfromaclassytown - Jun 12, 2012 at 4:14 PM

        Just trying to irk the falcon by making it seem like we still didn’t get it. Funny part is that he’s the one who brought up the “Mcdonalds coffee lady” in the first place.

  19. randygnyc - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:24 PM

    I bet this is the same phillie fan who was caught prostituting herself for phillies world series tickets. What is wrong with the women in Philadelphia?

    • badmamainphilliesjamas - Jun 12, 2012 at 3:50 PM

      OK, now you’ve gone too far . . . :)

    • chadjones27 - Jun 12, 2012 at 4:17 PM

      You call it prostitution. Philly fans call it “passion.”

    • anxovies - Jun 13, 2012 at 11:50 AM

      Now, that’s a real fan.

  20. protectthishouse54 - Jun 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM

    Was she wearing a green man suit by any chance?

  21. kvanhorn87 - Jun 12, 2012 at 4:07 PM

    Well played Craig. And what of the Braves ineptitude and what their fans have lost. Nm you have to have fans for them to lose their s$@/

  22. ningenito78 - Jun 12, 2012 at 4:43 PM

    “severe and permanent injuries to her head, neck, back, body, arms and legs, bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves and tissues …” and more. The pool did have water in it, attorney Aaron Denker said, though Peirce was tossed in the shallow end.

    The lawyer must have gotten mixed up because that sounds more like she got thrown into the DEEP end of a pool with NO water in it.

  23. ningenito78 - Jun 12, 2012 at 5:41 PM

    Ever get coffee at Dunkin Donuts? Pretty sure that would burn my nuts off if it spilled on my lap. Message not received.

  24. fearlessleader - Jun 12, 2012 at 6:15 PM

    Odd how many people here are quick to dismiss her story as a lie and a cash-grab. Speaking as a small woman who’s had things like this happen to me—when someone approaches you without warning, overpowers you, and does things to/with your body without your permission, it’s terrifying, potentially dangerous, and emphatically not okay.

    We can bemoan the litigiousness of 2012 America without denying that this woman might have gone through something pretty deeply upsetting.

  25. larryhockett - Jun 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM

    What an amazing talent we all have for knowing the full details of this (and every other case) without having to, you know, actually know the full facts. Justice is so much simpler to administer when we allow a paragraph to tell the whole story and then decide. Mobs haven’t advanced much in the past several millennia, as demonstrated day in and day out on Internet forums everywhere.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Do the Angels have any weaknesses?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (3795)
  2. A. Rizzo (2621)
  3. B. Belt (2460)
  4. R. Castillo (2409)
  5. J. Hamilton (2272)
  1. A. Pujols (2169)
  2. C. Young (2133)
  3. B. Gardner (2058)
  4. H. Ryu (2043)
  5. E. Gattis (1919)