Skip to content

The Nationals response to Jimmy Rollins: injuries are part of the deal

Feb 21, 2013, 9:13 AM EDT

Sandy Leon

The other day Jimmy Rollins said that if the Phillies hadn’t had so many injuries last year that they would have beat out the Nationals in the NL East. Bob Brookover asked the Nationals about that:

“I would never find Jimmy Rollins disrespectful,” he said. “I respect him too much. But if we were healthy all year, we might have won 120 games. But we’ll have a chance to find out this year.”

Which I don’t take at all to be Werth truly saying that the Nationals would have won 120 games. I take it — along with the comments of other Nats players — as a cute way of saying, hey, everyone has injuries, it’s part of the game.

I really do dislike it when players, managers, front office types, fans or whoever play the ” … if it weren’t for the injuries ..” game. Yes, injuries suck. And yes, injuries often prevent teams from doing as well as they might have if the injuries had not occurred. But injuries contribute to losses for every single team. If you hypothetically remove them from one team, as Rollins would have us do, you have to hypothetically remove them from the others as well.

  1. number42is1 - Feb 21, 2013 at 9:34 AM

    “Which I don’t take at all to be Werth truly saying that the Nationals would have won 120 games”

    I see what you did there

  2. hisgirlgotburrelled - Feb 21, 2013 at 9:41 AM

    “But injuries contribute to losses for every single team.”

    This is so dumb. Of course they do. Every team has some sort of injuries. Some teams have more, some have less. And usually, as is the case in every sport, the teams with fewer injuries win more games.

    • historiophiliac - Feb 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM

      Man, if only the Astros could stay healthy then!

      • hisgirlgotburrelled - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:01 AM

        I know you’re being sarcastic but i knew someone would say this. It should be understood that teams with fewer injuries to *talented* players win more games.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:04 AM

        Don’t take it personally. I’m just having a little fun with the Astros fans.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:17 AM

        Come on. It would be virtually impossible for the Astros to suffer an injury to a talented player in 2013.
        ;-)

      • hisgirlgotburrelled - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:17 AM

        Understood by the exclamation point… just sayin’, i know everyone’s going to jump in with their ‘well my team had injuries to this guy…’

    • natslady - Feb 21, 2013 at 9:53 AM

      Last year, 27.8% of Nats PAs came from reserves. http://wapo.st/Ydrfo8

      • natstowngreg - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:27 AM

        Pathetic how some thumbs-down the reality that the Nats won so many games despite injuries to several players. Probably, Phillies fans who have coping problems similar to Jimmy Rollins’.

      • natslady - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:32 AM

        @natstowngreg: What a difference from being a National joke on late night TV! Did you see where Rizzo says DC will become a baseball town? Not likely, if RG3 can stay healthy, but it’s fun to be part of the actual, y’know, FUN.

      • hisgirlgotburrelled - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:43 AM

        The Nats had fewer injuries than the Phillies. So posting how many plate appearances reserves had is showing what?… And I’ll let Ruben Amaro Jr. know all he has to do is suck for several years so the next time they lose their 3 and 4 hitters they’ll have a 19-year old phenom to plug in.

      • natslady - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:03 AM

        @hisgirl: Fillies plan to suck for a few years? Works for me.

      • paperlions - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:03 PM

        The difference in games lost to players on the DL between the Phillies and the Nationals wasn’t that great. Players on the Phillies’ roster spent about 1450 games on the DL and players on the Nationals’ roster spent about 1250 games on the DL. The Yankees (who had more injuries than Philly) and Orioles (who had nearly as many ~1410 games lost) did fine despite injuries.

        The Phillies are an old team (and old teams on average get hurt a more and take longer to recover) without much depth….so they finished .500. There isn’t much reason to expect a now older Philly team to be less injured or more productive this year.

    • voteforno6 - Feb 21, 2013 at 9:59 AM

      I don’t know if it’s a matter of simply having fewer injuries. I think that organizational depth is probably the most important factor, as well as luck. The Nationals had no injuries to their rotation, except for Wang in spring training. On the other hand, they used six different catchers last year. They just happened to have a lot of depth at that position, so they were able to weather that storm. Sometimes injuries could actually help them – when Zimmerman went down, with Morse already on the D.L., they were able to call up Bryce Harper and Tyler Moore earlier than they had planned.

      • therealtruth210 - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:23 AM

        @natslady…you don’t have to worry about that the Phillies won’t suck for a few years.

        and you just can’t talk about injuries and every team having them. Does every team have CY Young award winners or runners up who were hurt? How about any league MVP’s who missed half the season? or multiple all stars???So please save it, what Rollins said is the truth. They will be back on top this year.

      • cur68 - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:33 AM

        Yes, it did work out for them with getting Harper called up sooner. But key pitcher injuries have sunk many a team. An injured Wang is no joke. No joke at all. Take the Marlins, for instance. When Johnson was shut down for injury, they’ll tell you, it ain’t funny. Those guys are key members of their respective rotations. You can’t just slot any old stiff in there and expect the same outcomes.

        All in all, even WITH key injuries, the Nats managed VERY well by having, due to luck or good management (those two can be indistinguishable), just the right fill-in to keep things going.

      • chadjones27 - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:37 AM

        Back on top? Doubtful
        Possibly competing… yes.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:22 PM

        Cur, you’d best hope you don’t end up with an injured Dickey then.

      • cur68 - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM

        Thank Dog SOMEONE out there is paying attention.

  3. kirkvanhouten - Feb 21, 2013 at 9:41 AM

    Hmmm, I wonder about the last two WS winners….

    2012 Giants: Missed about two months of Pablo Sandoval and Melky Cabrera (not injuries, but still), their two best offense performers

    2011 Cardinals: Lost Adam Wainwright for the entire year, Matt Holliday missed a month, David Freese missed 2 1/2 months, Allen Craig missed a large chunk of time.

    So…boo hoo Jimmy.

    • kirkvanhouten - Feb 21, 2013 at 9:55 AM

      So, the Phillies went 81-81. Using WAR (boo, I know), how many might they have won with everyone healthy? (I’m assuming their replacements were at…well…replacement level so I’m not going to go through and subtract them)

      Carlos Ruiz missed about 30 games, so add 1.2 wins (4.4/114*30)
      Ryan Howard missed about 80 games. He was really, really bad in 2012 (-1.5 WAR), so I’m going to be nice and just call him replacement level for 2012 (he was 0.9 in 2011)
      Chase Utley missed about 70 games: + 2.4 wins
      Placido Polanco’s replacement was actually better, so we’ll let him stay injured.
      Cliff Lee missed about 3 starts, +0.4 wins
      Roy Halladay missed about 8 starts, +0.4 wins

      So…add them up and the 2012 Phillies win….85 games.

      But wait, they probably wouldn’t have traded Victorino and Pence….who put up 1.2 WAR collectively after the trade. Bring the Phillies to 86 wins.

      Fuck it, let’s say Ryan Howard healthy would have had the best year of his career!

      That’s 91 wins.

      Well, Chase Utley also has the best year of his career!

      We’re at 94.5

      No Jimmy, the Nationals were just better.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:05 AM

        Jimmy’s point was not isolated to missed games, so these WAR calculations do not directly refute his claim

        Not saying I agree with Jimmy – frankly it’s all moot

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:07 AM

        It’s actually even worse than that. Because (f/b)WAR is a counting stat, you can’t just pro-rate the players actual amount over 162 games without first removing what the replacements did as well. So yeah, Ruiz would have added 1.2 wins, but Eric Kratz added 1.4, so it’s a net -0.2 bWAR gain.

      • therealtruth210 - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:26 AM

        please STFU you are talking about league MVP’s, CY Young winners and multiple all stars that missed half the season or a good portion of it

      • hisgirlgotburrelled - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:32 AM

        So the 102 wins a year before were a fluke? 16 more losses is natural regression and progression by other teams?… I like WAR almost as much as the next person but what you did doesn’t equate to how many wins a team would have won. We all know the Phillies weren’t a good team last year, had a ton of injuries, but you can’t say you know what they would have been had they been healthy. Why can’t you wait for this season to start, when they are all presumed healthy, to stick it in our faces? Because no doubt they are a much worse team this year than 2011.

        “Roy Halladay missed about 8 starts, +0.4 wins”

        With Kyle Kendrick starting from June 1 to July 6 they went 2-5 and he had an ERA of 5.72 and BAA of .284 and a WPA of -0.54. Going by your WAR they only win 0.4 more games in those 5 losses. I think a healthy Halladay does much better than that.

      • kirkvanhouten - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:34 AM

        “please STFU you are talking about league MVP’s, CY Young winners and multiple all stars that missed half the season or a good portion of it”

        Uh…huh. Again, Phillies fans are so * sensitive*.

        So, you’re saying that Ryan Howard, Jimmy Rollins and Roy Halladay are still MVP and Cy Young calliber players? Because I will absolutely stop talking in that scenario because I won’t be able to stop laughing long enough to get any words out.

      • kirkvanhouten - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM

        “So the 102 wins a year before were a fluke? 16 more losses is natural regression and progression by other teams?”

        Yeah, that has happened more times than I can count. The 06 Cardinals, the 02 Mariners, 98 Yankees, 94 Giants, 91 A’s, 89 Mets, 87 Mets, 86 Cardinals….

        …should I go on? Sometimes team have a lot of really great players peaking right before they start to decline. 2011 saw Halladay, Lee, Hamels and Worely at their best, got far better output from Hunter Pence than he ever provided before, had a career year from Shane Victorino….

        A lot of things have to go right to be a 100 win team, and a lot of things went right for the 2011 Phillies, who were an excellent team. The hypothetical “healthy” 2012 Phillies still would have been good…86 wins is good, but it’s pretty naive to say that all those players who have matched their career years without any new, young additions who might have upside.

      • kirkvanhouten - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:50 AM

        “With Kyle Kendrick starting from June 1 to July 6 they went 2-5 and he had an ERA of 5.72 and BAA of .284 and a WPA of -0.54. Going by your WAR they only win 0.4 more games in those 5 losses. I think a healthy Halladay does much better than that.”

        You do know that Roy Halladay posted a 4.49 ERA in 2012, right? He wasn’t very good (and yes, before I get the more sabermetrically inclined turned against me to, I know many other factors go into ERA). ALso…I mean, Kyle Kendrick had a better season in term of ERA. You just happened to pick out his worst stretch and say “See, I proved my point!”. Whose to say Roy Halladay wouldn’t have also had his worst stretch then. Or his best?

        The point everyone seems to miss is that, a healthy version of the 2012 Phillies almost certainly would not have won 98 games.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:54 AM

        So, you’re saying that Ryan Howard, Jimmy Rollins and Roy Halladay are still MVP and Cy Young calliber players?

        Howard and Rollins no (although neither was the best player when they did win MVP, but I digress), but Halladay yes. He did win the CY in ’10 and was second in ’11. Was ’12 an off year or a portent of things to come?

      • kirkvanhouten - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:17 PM

        Allow me to say first off that Halladay’s 2012 was not as his ERA makes it out to be.

        1. His BB rate was, by far, the highest it’s been since 2004
        2. His HR rate was the highest since 2000
        3. His K/BB rate was the by far the lowest since he began his run of dominance in 2008
        4. There has been a significant decline in his velocity, especially in his cutter
        5. He’s going to be 36!

        I feel very confident in saying there is not a snowball’s chance in hell of Halladay winning the Cy Young next year. There is a very good chance that he’ll still be very good. But he posts a 2.30 ERA, and a 6/1 K/BB rate, I will personally paint your house (note: no I won’t).

        Also, I am always wrong. So factor that in when considering my prediction.

      • hisgirlgotburrelled - Feb 21, 2013 at 1:18 PM

        “I mean, Kyle Kendrick had a better season in term of ERA. You just happened to pick out his worst stretch and say “See, I proved my point!”. ”

        Because those were the starts in place of Halladay. You’re using WAR right? Doesn’t the R stand for replacement?

      • hisgirlgotburrelled - Feb 21, 2013 at 1:26 PM

        “The point everyone seems to miss is that, a healthy version of the 2012 Phillies almost certainly would not have won 98 games.”

        Not the point. No they probably would not have. Rollins might be trying to say that they could win 100 again. But I’m not. You Nats fans say that not only are they not a 100-win team, but they’re an 86-win team at best. And the reason they’re an average team had nothing to do with injuries.

        I never said Halladay was still a Cy Young contender, did I? But if you say he wouldn’t do better than what Kendrick did in his absense then I’ll stop because I’ll be fkin’ LOL’ing or something.

    • hisgirlgotburrelled - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:31 AM

      You got real technical with the WAR here, yet you previously just casually threw out “missed about 2 months of Sandoval and Cabrera.” Sandoval missed a total of 2 months, but not in a row, and the Giants played exactly 1 game without both Sandoval and Cabrera…

      And what is the point of your WAR research? Are you really trying to say that even if they were healthy then your WAR stats prove they would have only won 86 games??

      • kirkvanhouten - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:55 AM

        “And what is the point of your WAR research? Are you really trying to say that even if they were healthy then your WAR stats prove they would have only won 86 games??”

        Umm…yes actually. Would they have won exactly 86….fuck if I know. Would they have won 98? Almost certainly not.

      • therealtruth210 - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM

        yeah and steriods had nothing to do with Cabrera…stfu

  4. DelawarePhilliesFan - Feb 21, 2013 at 9:47 AM

    And the Nationals transition to officially becoming the 2006 Mets is complete.

    • Old Gator - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:03 AM

      Nonsense. You didn’t factor in Omar Minaya’s WAR. There’s no way the Gnats win only 73 games without him.

      • natstowngreg - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:34 AM

        Um, you mean the Mets win 73 games? Yes, the concept of the Nats being a contender requires some adjustment, but still,…

        Gee, if the GM’s that important, Mike Rizzo’s 2012 WAR must have been pretty high.

      • natslady - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:23 AM

        @natstowngreg: yeah, but ya gotta deduct for losing the WS because of The Shutdown. /tryingforsomehumorhere

  5. raysfan1 - Feb 21, 2013 at 9:50 AM

    True enough, but it’s also true that every year there are 1-2 teams that really do seem to get harder with injuries than the others. It’s also why having quality depth is important.

    • polonelmeagrejr - Feb 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM

      raysfan One would be inclined to look for a reason and perhaps a remedy, then.

      • natstowngreg - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:44 AM

        I’m sure teams are looking out for improvements in training methods and sports medicine that can help prevent injuries that can be prevented.

        A lot of injuries, however, come under the category of “accidents happen.” Like breaking a wrist diving for a fly ball, or getting a concussion from an errant pitch, or breaking an ankle sliding into a base. Thus, as raysfans correctly notes, the need for depth.

    • heyblueyoustink - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM

      As long as they don’t get harder for more than four hours at a time.

  6. phillyfan75 - Feb 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM

    Ahh…the life of sportswriters in today’s age of twitter and blogs – need to keep posting away and get as many internet hits as possible so this is the type of stuff you have to turn to.

    Thankfully actual games are coming soon.

  7. churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM

    Breakdown of injuries by team last year:

    http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-on-baseball/20595588/most-injuryriddled-team-in-2012-the-san-diego-padres

    Btw, using this new “Werth Math” if the Nationals would have won 120 games with 1270 days missed to injury we get (120-98 = 22 wins gained; 1270/22 – 57.7 days = 1 win) we see the Yanks would have won 125 games (1753/57.7 = 30+95 = 125).

    Works for me!

    • ptfu - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM

      Wheee, this is fun! My Padres led baseball in days on the DL, and still found a way to win 76 games. If the going rate is 57.7 days/win, then we woulda coulda shoulda won (1883/57.7) 32 more games, for a total of 108 wins. Playoffs baby! We coulda been a contender!

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:34 AM

        Using “Werth Math” and excel, here are the new “wins” totals for each team

        https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApZZhwNFk6sYdDRQa2paUVhKWVl2cW1OMmxsQUF1dXc#gid=0

      • natslady - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:40 AM

        Church, this sounds great, but I need access! Can you take that off (or give me access)?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:41 AM

        Done

    • natslady - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM

      Church, thanks. On a quick glance, there seem to be more wins than possible in the 162-game season…. Nobody gets injured, so nobody loses?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:32 AM

        Yeah it’s impossible to account for the losses, so the numbers won’t add up. Just did a little spreadsheeting to see who would be affected the most with Werth Math.

  8. humanexcrement - Feb 21, 2013 at 9:57 AM

    If your aunt had balls, she’d be your uncle.

    • Old Gator - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:04 AM

      That, or just your run of the mill hermaphroditic aunt.

      • historiophiliac - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:37 AM

        I wish I could post an appropriate Woody Guthrie song, but I can’t from work. :(

      • historiophiliac - Feb 21, 2013 at 7:21 PM

    • fanofevilempire - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:17 AM

      not really, it’s all in your personally point of view.

  9. volcom2143 - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:01 AM

    The nationals are one person now ?

    • Old Gator - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:05 AM

      Now that’s what I call great team chemistry. I like to sit back and imagine the Gnats as an enormous volvox.

      • natslady - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:38 AM

        OK, I hadda look that up, OG. Hey, don’t make fun of our bearded future manager!!

        http://ladyandthenats.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-player-manager-in-our-future.html

  10. dkphilly1122 - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM

    This coming from a Brave’s fan in Craig……the Phillies number one hater yet he writes all the Phillies stuff on here. Injuries are definitely part of the game……no excuses at all. The Phillies will be the dark horse this year with there team just healthy and not expected to do too much. On paper the Nats are already winning the division……but us Phillies fans know on paper isn’t always true. You still have to play 162 games and major injuries could come along to any team. Were the Giants the team on paper to win it all both times they won?? For a team with absolutely no fan base two years ago the Nats sure do have a big fan base on here…….they’re like Penguin fans, no where to be found when your team sucks, but are every where when they are winning.

    • natslady - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:27 AM

      It wasn’t that I hadn’t found the Nats before 2012. It’s that I hadn’t found this blog. BIG difference.

    • voteforno6 - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:32 AM

      Where were the Phillies fans when they sucked?

      • heyblueyoustink - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:57 AM

        Sitting in the Vet, sweating in the sun, and watching Travis Lee swing and watching Mike Lieberthal as the Phillies best player.

        Give us a little more credit than that. Most of us sat through the Robert Person/Randy Wolf top of the rotation.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM

        Sitting in the Vet, sweating in the sun, and watching Travis Lee swing and watching Mike Lieberthal as the Phillies best player.

        Was the Vet that shitty? looking at some attendance numbers for the last few years of it, we get:

        01 – 24th – 22,846
        02 – 24th – 20,482
        03 – 14th – 28,973 (last year of the Vet)
        04 – 4th – 40,626 (CBP opens)

      • heyblueyoustink - Feb 21, 2013 at 1:33 PM

        “Was the Vet that shitty?”

        It was so bad it was endearing.

    • kinggw - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM

      So Nats fans are like Phillies fans and every other fan base in the world. When they improve dramatically bandwagon fans come out of the woodwork. Phillies fans arent as die hard as they claim to be. Do Phillies fans come out in droves when the Phillies are mediocre or flat out stink? The answer is no, and when they start rebuilding a year or two from now CBP will be as empty as the Vet was before they closed it down.

      • dwdive - Feb 21, 2013 at 3:00 PM

        That’s not treu, Phillies, Eagles, and Flyers fans have ALWAYS been strong in attendance and support. Philly fans are as die hard as they come. Take that sh!t somewhere else, nobody wants to hear and a$$hole speak.

    • natstowngreg - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM

      I can honestly say that, for a couple of years before last season, I was most of the Nats fan base on this here blog right here. Enduring the large Phillies fan base and its “we’re entitled to win the World Series” attitude. It’s been nice to have company. It’s also been fun to see the Nats rise from being irrelevant in Craig’s (and baseball”s in general) eyes to being worthy of serious trolling.

      BTW, the Nats aren’t winning the division on paper. The Braves are not exactly shabby themselves.

      • natslady - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:02 PM

        Right. ATL not shabby. Will be interesting to see if Up-Up-Hey works (I think the Up bros could work well together, better than they’ve worked separately) and how they do w/o Chipper and Prado.

      • ryanrockzzz - Feb 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM

        Atlanta has a chance to be boom or bust, I think the Nats are a much better team. The Braves aren’t that much better then the Phillies, and both teams have that huge boom or bust factor. This years version of the Nationals is shaping up to a very deep club, with a good mix of producting vet’s, and also those good young players.

        Probably worth mentioning though, it’s always good to keep an eye on teams with a lot of players in their contract year…and the the Phillies have Halladay, Utley, Ruiz and Young all pushing for new deals….

      • dwdive - Feb 21, 2013 at 3:02 PM

        Braves aren’t better than the Phillies at all. Good luck with the Upton brothers hitting 240. and .270 while striking out 350. Phillies rotation is still better as well.

  11. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM

    To which David Wright replied, “Well, if it weren’t for all of those games where we scored fewer runs than our opponent, we would have won every game!”

    You don’t get a ring for winning the hypothetical World Series in your head, Jimmy.

  12. tsi431 - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:21 AM

    I wonder if Jimmy Rollins would be faster if we strapped a cheetah to his back?

    • chadjones27 - Feb 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM

      Sounds like you’ve thought this through.

  13. ryanrockzzz - Feb 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM

    I really like the Phillies as an underdog this year in the east. The Nationals deserve to go in as the number one team in this division. After all, they have the most talent, and I really liked the additions of Haren, Span, and even Soriano to make them even better. That being said, we find out every year that baseball can’t played on paper, and 162 games is a long time to just out and out say one team will be much better then the next.

    If i were a betting man, I would say that the Phillies, Nats, Braves, and even the Mets beat up on each other for much of the year, with the Mets eventually falling off giving way to a three team race. The pundits can say what they will, but the Phillies have the pitching and infield to stack up with anyone in the east. If they can hang in it till July, add an OF bat at some point, they may just win 90-93 games again.

  14. chadjones27 - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:39 AM

    And as the case may be sometimes, an injury (to Phillies D. Young) may actually help the team win more games.

  15. tcostant - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM

    Werth’s point is valid, but clearly overblown.

    But Morse and Storen missed half a season each. Weth miss at least 8 weeks. Zimmerman spent time on the DL and wasn’t “right” half the year. Desi also spend time on the DL. So I see his point.

  16. deafrecon - Feb 21, 2013 at 1:35 PM

    the phillies could definitely beat up the nationals. rollins would hurt his hamstring charging the mound, and all anyone needs to do is chop block utley to take him out. what hurts the phillies more is howard and his gimpy ankle. should his ankle be healthy, all bets are off because he is truly a monster with incredible opposite fist power. the newly added revere seems like his personality is so bubbly, that you could punch him and he would giggle and bounce like a bobblehead. you know m. young would bring that professional attitude to a fight. all halladay needs to do is stare at you; you stare back at that scowl and you’re definitely just going to get dropped. where the fight will truly be won for the phillies is chooch and cholly. chooch will be all hopped up on amphetamines, and cholly seems like the kind of guy that would bring a rifle to a fistfight.

    for the nationals, i can definitely see bernadina and zimmerman making an impact, but when you have amazing athleticism and struggle to apply it, and when you punch someone while blowing out your shoulder, it’s kind of tough to give these two the benefit of the doubt. werth’s has a fragile wrist and harper gives himself black eyes. strasburg would sit out of the fight because he’s too important to their future. let’s be honest, gio is an amazing talent, but he seems like kind of a bitch.

    i think it’s pretty clear who will beat who up when it’s all said an done. if you can’t agree with this, then i can’t take you seriously.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Patience finally paying off for Royals fans
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (2973)
  2. D. Ortiz (2225)
  3. J. Hamilton (2187)
  4. N. Arenado (2155)
  5. C. Kershaw (2110)
  1. G. Stanton (2094)
  2. M. Trout (1992)
  3. A. Pujols (1985)
  4. A. Rizzo (1979)
  5. A. Pagan (1962)