Apr 27, 2013, 9:32 AM EST
The Pirates could be without their starting second baseman for a little while. According to Tom Singer of MLB.com, Neil Walker required six stitches in the knuckle of his right index finger last night after he attempted to break up a double play and had his hand stepped on by Cardinals’ shortstop Pete Kozma. You can watch the play here.
Walker said it will likely be six or seven days for before the stitches are removed, though there’s a chance it could be longer before he’s completely comfortable with baseball activities. It’s not clear if the Pirates will make a roster move or go short-handed over the next several days.
“It was very, very deep — the deepest cut I’ve ever had for stitches,” said Walker, wearing a bandage around his right hand with blood stains on his uniform pants after the game. “I’m not excited that it happened, but I do feel fortunate that there was no damage to tendons or bone or issues like that.
Walker, 27, is hitting .253 (20-for-79) with one home run, eight RBI and a .693 OPS through 23 games this season. Brandon Inge is expected to fill in at second base for now.
- Matt Harvey makes his return. And he was really impressive. 20
- Hector Olivera’s camp denies any damage to ulnar collateral ligament 3
- UPDATE: Hunter Pence out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left forearm 28
- MLBPA: leaks are from people “who want to see Josh Hamilton hurt personally and professionally” 36
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 147
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 45
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 6
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 6
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (380)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (147)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- That facts of Josh Hamilton’s case should not be a matter of public record (94)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (90)