The Dodgers Should Start Julio Urias
The Dodgers, of course, announced that they’re going with Kershaw today. But I’d still have gone the other way.
It’s becoming an October tradition; as the Dodgers head into game four of the NLDS, they are considering whether to bring back Clayton Kershaw on three days rest. As I sat down to talk about their decision on who to pitch today, I realized this is the third time in four years we’ve written this same post.
Back in 2013, Jeff Sullivan wrote about the decision between starting Kershaw or Ricky Nolasco. In 2014, Jeff again wrote about the call to pick Kershaw over Dan Haren. Last year, apparently we got distracted by Chase Utley’s slide or something, because we didn’t appear to write about the Dodgers using Kershaw in game four of the series against the Mets, but that happened too; the Dodgers have thrown Kershaw in games one and four of the division series three straight years, bringing him back on three days rest each time.
This year, though, I think they should do it differently. I think they should start Julio Urias today.
Yes, the Dodgers season is on the line today. They have to win this game in order to even have a chance to win on Thursday. They are shooting baseball’s equivalent of a one-and-one, needing to sink the first free throw to be given the second one.
But while today’s game is obviously critical, the fact remains that the Dodgers have to win their next two games or their season ends. Maximizing your chances of winning today, while hurting your chances of winning on Thursday, could actually lower the team’s chances of advancing to the NLCS, which should be the goal the Dodgers are focused on. Instead of looking at only what improves their odds of winning today, the Dodgers should be asking what gives them the best chance of winning their next two games.
Starting Kershaw today means you can’t start him in Thursday’s game five, when he would be pitching on full rest. In any scenario where the Dodgers advance, Kershaw will pitch one game, so the team’s decision involves whether they want a short-rest Kershaw or a full-rest Kershaw pitching one of the two games. While Kershaw has pitched well in these scenarios before, the reality remains that history shows that pitchers are less effective on short rest than they are on full rest. We’ll just quote Sullivan’s first pieces on the issue showing the data.
Really at issue is Kershaw on short rest. We can’t compare him to himself, because he’s never done this before. We do have a history of other starters going on short rest in the playoffs, so that’s going to have to do. Below, you’ll see statistics for two groups, in postseason play between 1995-2013. The first group is starters who went on three days’ rest. The second group is starters who didn’t. Understand that the first group should be selective for better arms, because you don’t put mediocre starters on short rest in October, or ever. Typically, it’s aces who go on three days’ rest, and the numbers are telling:
Short-rest group: 4.66 ERA, 5.13 RA
Other group: 3.99 ERA, 4.30 RAOn short rest, starters have faced fewer batters, on average. They’ve posted worse game scores, on average. And — maybe most importantly — teams with starters going on short rest have won 33 times and lost 52 times. Now, maybe these teams are worse, which is why they’re starting guys on short rest in the first place, but they’ve by and large given the ball to their aces, and the aces haven’t delivered like usual.
Kershaw has, thus far, performed well on short rest, posting a 1.89 ERA in 19 innings when asked to take the hill in game four, but of course we don’t have a baseline to compare it to; it’s possible he would have pitched even better on full rest, perhaps going more than the six innings he lasted in those short-rest starts in 2013 and 2014. In those games, after all, he’s only throw 91, 94, and 102 pitches; the Dodgers limited his workload in short rest starts, which likely wouldn’t be the case in a normal-rest game five.
But there’s a bigger consideration here, and a change that makes this year different than the others. Because of Saturday’s rainout in Washington, Rich Hill didn’t pitch until Sunday, and so starting Kershaw on short rest today does not give them the opportunity to bring back their #2 starter on full rest as they have done in the past. If they start Kershaw on short rest today, they’re essentially also committing to starting Hill on short rest in game five, and doubling down on the three-days-rest gambit.
Last year, starting Kershaw on short rest meant that they got a full-rest Zack Greinke in game five, so by taking a lesser version of Kershaw between the final two games, they got to start Greinke instead of Alex Wood. That’s a significant benefit, and a legitimate reason to take the reduced version of Kershaw even when you have two games to win.
This year, the Dodgers don’t have that benefit. Rich Hill, as good as he has been this year, isn’t that much better than Julio Urias.
| Pitcher | BB% | K% | GB% | HR/9 | BABIP | LOB% |
| Hill | 8% | 29% | 45% | 0.33 | 0.275 | 79% |
| Urias | 9% | 25% | 44% | 0.58 | 0.358 | 77% |
The big difference in ERA between them was driven by BABIP, and there’s no real reason to think Urias’ true-talent BABIP is up near .360. If you had to choose a full-rest Hill or a full-rest Urias, you’d definitely take Hill, but that’s not the choice here; the Dodgers have to decide whether they want a full-rest Urias or a short-rest Hill as their reward for taking a short-rest Kershaw over a full-rest Kershaw.
And to me, that just doesn’t seem worth it. Maybe starting Kershaw ups your odds of winning today by a few points, but unless you think a short-rest Hill is dramatically better than a full-rest Urias, you have to think it drops the team’s chances of winning game five by an even larger amount. And the Dodgers have to win both games, so if you lower your odds of winning game five more than you raise them of winning game four, you’re effectively lowering your chances of winning the series. And just to pile on, if you start Kershaw and Hill in the next two games, then neither would be be available to start the first game of the NLCS on Saturday on full rest, so you’d be lowering your odds of winning that series too.
If you start Urias today, you get a full-rest Kershaw on Thursday, and a full-rest Hill in the first game of the NLCS, if you get there. Sure, you have to win today to get those rewards, but there are real benefits of starting the youngster today. Given the alternatives, I don’t see the same benefits to starting Kershaw. There’s no full-rest Greinke around as a benefit this year, and Urias is likely to give you a better performance this year than Alex Wood a year ago.
While we can agree that the Dodgers have to win today in order to get to Thursday, I think the team’s best chances of winning the next two are to get a full-rest Kershaw in the fifth game of the series. And that means you start the 20-year-old Urias today.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
They already announced Kershaw is starting.
He added the top portion after I posted this people.
Well that certainly makes this article more interesting and valid. Post-game analysis is nearly pointless cough Britton cough
I don’t understand this response to the Britton situation. 1) TONS of people were calling for this during the game. 2) TONS of people have written about the idea of using your best reliever against the best hitters. 3) And it’s super odd that the tone here is that the people who buck (intended!) the status quo are somehow the sheep? How are the people who are arguing against the unthinking masses of “only in a save situation” the ones that get viewed as mindless followers?
Good analysis. it is hard to process the idea of two must-win games vs the win today mentality. Somebody is going to have to step up for the Dodgers to advance – might as well be Urias today on normal rest.
Could they be thinking: use Kershaw on short rest today, since he can likely still give 6-7 innings. Then use Urias in game 5 in a bullpen game. The reason to do it this way is that they might feel that more of their bullpen is tired in this game having pitched back to back days, and feeling less comfortable about using them 3 days in a row.
Then you start Urias on Thursday. You still have Hill in reserve on short rest if needed.
Beat me to it.
Yeah, this is exactly it. Given pen usage, whoever goes today should ideally go deep. Kershaw is the safer bet. Save Urias for when the Pen is full strength.
Seems doubly risky. Not only do you need Kershaw to be generally effective on short rest, you need him to go long in the game?
Saving the bullpen is an another argument in favor of Urias, I would think. He may not be as good, but he’s more likely to have enough gas to go 7-8 innings.
Urias never pitched more than 6 innings in the regular season. Granted, part of the reason he never pitched more than 6 innings could be that the Dodgers wanted to limit his innings so he’d be available in the postseason, but I still think it’s unreasonable to expect a rookie to go 7 or 8 innings in the postseason when he’s never done that in his career.
Good point. We can debate whether short-rest Kershaw is more likely to pitch deep into a game than Urias, but the plan is logical given the premises.
It’s hindsight now, but I do wonder if the Dodgers would have been better served to set their LDS roster with 12 pitchers and 1 fewer position player. Wasn’t a rainout in DC somewhat likely when they set the roster last Friday?
I agree. But they might be thinking they can go Urias 3 innings in game 5, then a bullpen game with Hill maybe getting 2-3, with Baez, Blanton, Dayton also available to do lefty-righty, Jansen at the end.
“Kershaw has, thus far, performed well on short rest, posting a 1.89 ERA in 19 innings when asked to take the hill in game four, but of course we don’t have a baseline to compare it to”
We don’t? How about all the postseason games he’s started on normal rest? Since his overall PS ERA is 4.5, if he’s < 2 on short rest, that means he's been far worse on normal rest.
Which, granted, means very little because of the small sample size. But I can understand why the Dodgers would look at that past history and think Kershaw could start today.
If you’re counting his other postseason games as a baseline (and not his regular season starts on regular rest), then maybe we should just use something like “games started on Tuesdays” as a baseline?
While I understand the reluctance to using just his other playoff games as the baseline due to the SSS, on the other hand, it’s a more fair comparison because the playoff games are against a higher level of competition, while the regular season performance comes against a lot of teams that are of inferior quality.
That being said, his fantastic stats in an EXTREMELY small sample size on short test isn’t really worth comparing to ANY baseline, because what’s the point of making any comparison against a number that isn’t all that meaningful to begin with?
Plus it’s hard to believe that ANY baseline is going to look significantly BETTER than the short-rest data, and there’s no reason to believe that working on short rest would have a BENEFIT to a pitcher (at least a non-junk-baller/knuckler)
So, yes, we do have a baseline … just not a very high confidence in it due to small sample size.
But heck, for this discussion we do have two sets of data to compare [1] on short rest, [2] on regular rest.
I’m not saying you put a ton of confidence in either one, but to say the data isn’t there is not true.
Also … as well all saw on MLBN … Kershaw’s ERA (runs allowed) in all starts is pretty damn good … except for the 7th inning.
So … maybe it’s not “Kershaw isn’t clutch in the playoffs”, maybe it’s “Kershaw gets left in too long in the playoffs” … which is weird because in the playoffs starters tend to get pulled earlier because the bullpens can be used more due to the off/travel days
if they start Urias today and lose….it would be like Showalter not using Britton…. at least he media reaction to it…
A MLB manager shouldn’t worry about the media when making decisions.
True, he is right though, I could see the articles now: “Kershaw has historically performed well with short rest, but Roberts thought that 20 year old Urias was big enough for the spotlight.”
Total bullshit, but you know it would happen.
Since it relates to job security, he has to. Maybe he shouldn’t, but the reality of the situation is that he has to consider it.
I would assume the front office is in on this decision as well
Maybe the LADs should send out an email poll to their season ticket base to make sure they maximize fan agreement?
The Matchup matters too: The Dodgers are more likely to score runs on Joe Ross than Max Scherzer. Start Urias….. oh well
Another important difference between this year and years past: Kershaw has been injured. I believe G1 was the first time post-injury he’s cleared 100 pitches (and it took him 5 innings to do that). It’s certainly reasonable to expect Kershaw will be better today than he was in G1, but short rest + coming off an injury suggests the Dodgers may get a short outing, even if they get a good one. So I’m not sure the “rest the bullpen” explanation for starting Kershaw holds water here.
As a Nats fan, I’m mostly thankful that starting Kershaw in G4 means that the Nats’ season doesn’t come down to a winner-take-all game facing Clayton Kershaw, which would have been terrifying.
Have a problem with this assumption: “And the Dodgers have to win both games, so if you lower your odds of winning game five more than you raise them of winning game four, you’re effectively lowering your chances of winning the series.” This is not a zero sum gain proposition. There are some factors that impact game 5 that are unknowable, some of which could lessen the impact of the Dodgers’ pitching decision for today (e.g., other player injuries impacting game 5). The divergence in decision making is reflective of the disagreement over zero sum gain probabilities. For the Dodgers it is simple. They would likely be willing to lower the probably of winning game 5 by twice as much as increasing the probability of winning game 4. Why? The probability of winning game 5 is conditional on winning game 4.
“For the Dodgers it is simple. They would likely be willing to lower the probably of winning game 5 by twice as much as increasing the probability of winning game 4. Why? The probability of winning game 5 is conditional on winning game 4.”
Completely disagree with this point. It’s deeply illogical. The Dodgers need to maximize the probability of winning both Games 4 and 5. Take your stated idea to an extreme – a 90% chance of winning Game 4 and 10% chance of winning Game 5 is only a 9% chance of winning the series (0.9 times 0.1). Having each game at a 50/50 proposition is a far better 25% chance of winning the series (0.5 times 0.5).
Disagree completely. Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. Same sentiment applies to playing in game 5. If you want to argue that urias on full rest is a better option than Kershaw on short rest then i agree. The one game at a time cliche’ holds true.
50% × 50% = 25%
60% × 40% = 24%
60% × 30% = 18%
I get that “Kershaw on full rest is better than Kershaw on short rest, and Urias/Hill is a mess for Thursday, so really why would they start Kershaw on short rest?” but they don’t get the option of even making a choice for Thursday if they don’t win today.
Game 5 is not a given. Game 5’s odds can go down if Game 4’s odds go up because they need to win Game 4 first.
It’s confusing that in the wild card game we get articles about how teams should empty their bullpen, but in an elimination game in the short series, we get articles which argue the other side.
I’ll just leave this here:
You know what would really hurt the Dodgers’ chances of winning Game 5? Losing Game 4.
https://twitter.com/McCulloughTimes/status/785876401928798208
You know what would be really great? If the LA Times had a Dodgers beat reporter who understood how to calculate simple probabilities, which most of us were taught in middle school.
In what world is deciphering who gives a higher probability of winning an elimination game between Kershaw on short resr and a 20 yr old stud rookie on full rest a simple thing to calculate? Not a one person can calculate the short rest portion in to a probability. He could come out with his best stuff or look like he has jelly arm.
That wasn’t the subject of his tweet. McCullough was ignoring that the Dodgers’ chance of winning this series is the product of multiplying “Probability of Winning Game 4” times “Probability of Winning Game 5”. While I agree that each of those probabilities is difficult to estimate, the basic framework is middle school math. If the Dodgers can increase either of those two numbers while holding the other one constant – in whatever order doesn’t matter – then it’s a good move for them. So we don’t even to know what each probability is, just whether we can increase one without lowering the other. The LA Times writer was saying to look only at the chance of winning Game 4, which doesn’t make sense.
Simply looking at the better chance of winning Game 4 is not the relevant comparison, which is the topic of Dave’s whole post. MJBuddy also has a comment below that summarizes this point very well. The Dodgers need to win both Game 4 and Game 5.
An “elimination game” for one team and a “winner take all” game are very different things. That’s the reason that, for example, the Giants putting Matt Moore into last night’s game would have only been done as a desperation move if the game went so long that they ran out of other pitching options. The Giants can’t just completely ignore the probability of winning additional games in the series.
* don’t even need to know
Because the wild card situation and the Dodgers’ current situation are dramatically different. The Dodgers need to win both Game 4 and Game 5. Winning Game 4 but losing Game 5 does nothing for them. They’re still out of the playoffs.
Let’s say that a team down 2-1 has a 50/50 chance of winning each of game 4 and Game 5. (That’s a bit simplistic, but not far off from reality.) That means a 25% chance of winning the series (0.5 multiplied by 0.5). Let’s say some hypothetical strategy can greatly increase its chance of winning Game 4 to 70% but lower its chance of winning Game 5 to 30%. That would be foolish to pursue, because it lowers the probability of winning the series by 4 percentage points to 21% (0.7 multiplied by 0.3).
By contrast, the wild card game is that entire round of the playoffs. The key point is that the wild card isn’t only an elimination game: it’s both an elimination game and a clinching game. This point shouldn’t be controversial.
“Let’s say some hypothetical strategy can greatly increase its chance of winning Game 4 to 70% but lower its chance of winning Game 5 to 30%.” You can’t know this is true because you are assuming future events. You would know the impact to the game 4 probability, and can only speculate about the impact on game 5 probability. Based on events you don’t know about yet, you could end up with 70% in game 4, and 50% in game 5 (due to other events you didn’t know about).
If the Dodgers win today, they get to play Game 5. If the Wild Card team wins, they get to go to a LDS. Either way, their season keeps going.
The only difference is the arbitrary division between winning “a round” and winning a game.
No, the distinction is more than arbitrary because what a team gets by winning is very different. If a team wins the Wild Card, they get to play a best 3 out of 5 series. If the Dodgers win today, they get another single elimination game. If the Wild Card was instead followed by a single elimination game two days later – so like the situation if a team needs to play a game 163 before the Wild Card – then a manager similarly needs to think long and hard about trying to win both games rather than just one.
There’s also nothing here arguing against the Dodgers being aggressive in emptying their bullpen. That obviously makes sense, because the same pitchers should be reasonably rested and effective for a potential Game 5 after an off-day. (Just as they would be for an LDS after a wild card game.) Dave even says that he could see going with Kershaw if that would mean that Hill is available for Game 5 on normal rest, but Hill wouldn’t be.
The one decent argument that I’ve seen is if the Dodgers think that their bullpen is thin today after Sunday and Monday and believe that short-rest Kershaw gives them a better chance for innings today, and then Game 5 would be cobbling together innings from Urias, short-rest Hill, and a more rested bullpen. We can debate the premises of how likely short-rest Kershaw is to pitch longer than Urias, but at least it’s a logical and mathematically literate argument if you accept the premises.
.
They’re going to “empty their bullpen”: they’re going to pitch Kershaw, not leave him on the bench for both games.
There is no short rest penalty for bringing your best reliever into the 7th.
I get how this can seem counterintuitive, but they really do need to win two games here.
Why would you assume Kershaw is more like other worse pitchers on 3 days rest than he is like Kershaw on 3 days rest? Also Urias looks insanely more hittable than Hill. Plus the sooner you throw Kershaw, if it works for the series you have him back that much sooner for the NLCS. Seems kind of obvious to me. Between this and the bad slide rule idea I’m a bit worried about you, dave!
Dave assumes that he can discern how much the Dodgers are lowering their probability of winning in game 5. Only then can he attempt to make a tradeoff to the increase in the probability of winning game 4. There is no basis for that assumption. It is logically not supportable because you are assuming future events. For example, say Murphy and Harper collide on a fly ball in game 4 and both are out for game 5. I don’t think the Dodgers chances of winning game 5 starting Urias is lower than what Dave assumes it will be. And that is the point. You don’t know, which is why live to fight another day can be logically consistent.
“For example, say Murphy and Harper collide on a fly ball in game 4 and both are out for game 5.”
Well, we can come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability of serious injuries to two of the Nationals’ best position players occurring in a single game, and it’s really, really low.
Totally agree. My issue is the assumption that you can model the probabilities accurately. I don’t think you can. If I believe that my non-Kershaw starter in game 5 does not unreasonably compromise my chances in game 5, then I have to go with Kershaw. The degree of unreasonableness is effectively the Dodgers modeling of the varying probabilities.
I can model them accurately enough, holding all else equal.
a. Kershaw with more rest > Kershaw with less rest
b. Urias is entirely rested.
c. You must play two games to go forward.
If you want to argue the bullpen position, I think that’s a good position. If you want to argue that this game matters more, so play Kershaw, you don’t get probabilities. Any remote “future state that is unknowable” should be symmetric for both teams, so the end probabilities for those are likely insignificant and even across both teams.
Unless you mean the “remote” probability that pitching your injury recovered best pitcher in baseball on short rest could injure him for the rest of the playoffs, which is the only non-symmetric risk I’m seeing here.
Agree, but again the assumption is “holding all else equal”. How else do you model it otherwise?
Kershaw has never gotten it done in the playoffs don’t expect him to start today… great regular season stats though!
Hope everyone who down-voted can put their money where their mouth is.
Did you read the article?
“Kershaw has, thus far, performed well on short rest, posting a 1.89 ERA in 19 innings when asked to take the hill in game four”
I dont need to read what an “expert” says, (although I do read most of the articles posted) I watch the games and think for myself…oh btw how good did he do on short rest today hahahaha! Playoff ERA over 5
He had 11 strikeouts to 2 walks and left the game with a 5-2 lead in the 7th inning. I’d say he pitched fine. His FIP and xFIP this postseason are 0.83 and 2.69, respectively.
However, I have little doubt that someone like yourself doesn’t believe in looking at FIP or xFIP instead of ERA.
Stop with the facts and statistics already. This is an emotional and faulty memory discussion. If you want to make your point more valid than the opposing view, then talk faster and louder.
playoof era near 5 (the misspelling is correct)
It’s clear you don’t have the necessary tools to think for yourself.
I love how I say my opinion on Kershaw than everyone starts attacking me personally. “someone like myself” I wrote 2 sentences on the internet how do you expect to know me? I look at FIP and other stats but ITS THE PLAYOFFS WINS AND LOSSES MATTER PEOPLE IM NOT TALKING ABOUT FANTASY STATS!
OK you lured me in…”I dont have the necessary tools” huh? ok ok what do you do for a living fuck face? we can play this game if you want, but you shouldn’t insult a person’s personal intelligence just because I disagree on a baseball opinion.
Kershaw is one of the most dominant and best pitchers in MLB history, and he’s been historically successful on short rest. Given these above facts, the only thing that then matters is usage chance. If you start him tonight you have a 100% chance to use Kershaw. But if you lose tonight with Urias you have a 0% usage chance for Kershaw. 100% or 0%? Quite an easy decision for a manager. Plus, what if injuries happen tonight to the Nationals? What if someone is scratched on Thursday from the Nats due to a stomach bug. Urias would then be facing an inferior lineup compared to tonight, and his Thursday game begins to look more promising. You never know what injuries or occurrences will happen in the future – look at Utley’s take-out slide as mentioned in this article.
I have no idea how this got 2 downvotes.
Are any of us honestly and realistically not starting Kershaw in game 4 if we are the manager and our job may depend on it?
We talk bigly (thanks for the new adverb Trump) about Kershaw non-stop. Now, we’re not going to pitch him, with some evidence of short rest success, in what could be our team’s last game of the season?
I find that very hard to believe folks. I understand, and appreciate, the idea of thinking of alternatives and options, etc …. I just don’t believe any of us are betting our job with pitching Urias in the elimination game.
“Are any of us honestly and realistically not starting Kershaw in game 4 if we are the manager and our job may depend on it?”
That is indeed what the article is about.
If anything, Kershaw and Hill have had too much rest over the last couple of months. Maybe they’ll both be sharper on shorter rest.
Aren’t they really just thinking “If we lose without putting our ace on the hill, we’re screwed.”
Wouldn’t all of the fans trash the manager, etc? Isn’t that why KC makes the big bucks … to pitch these big games on short rest like the greats of the past have? (or so they say)
We can say what we want, and even back it up with data analysis and sabermetric evidence, but much of it still comes down with the idea of the ace in an elimination game.
If they save KC for a game 5 that never comes, they’d be burned at the stake.
This. Plus losing in 5 looks a lot better than losing in 4 – to fans and upper management. “We were so close!” vs. 3-1
To think there isn’t some aspect of a first year manager trying to look as good as possible in this type of choice is a literal generous to human nature than I’m comfortable with.
im at the point where i dont even care who is playing in the actual game – just please dont make me listen to Tom Verducci anymore
Can people stop insisting this is simple probability. There are so many variables people aren’t taking in to account in these basic equations. If the dodgers don’t think urias is ready to handle a playoff elimination game what %of a loss penalty would you assign to him? What if Kershaw demanded the ball, are you saying no to the franchise player and best pitcher of this generation? Arguing who you think will pitch better is fine, but saying they are 50/50 in each game and running probabilities is futile.
“If the dodgers don’t think urias is ready to handle a playoff elimination game”
If that’s honestly the case, then I question why he’s even on the postseason roster with the thought that he’ll start. Or, with less hyperbole and recognizing that players do have limitations, why the Dodgers don’t have a roster with a 12th pitcher and the expectation that Urias and someone else will piggyback starts. Because, as Dave points out, the Dodgers’ current plan to win the series still relies on either full-rest Urias or a short-rest Rich Hill (which has its own big risks) handling an elimination game.
That was just an example of something behind the scenes, that we the general public would not be privy to.
I wholeheartedly agree with Dave’s overall point, but I think that his “and just to pile on, if you start Kershaw and Hill in the next two games, then neither would be be available to start the first game of the NLCS on Saturday on full rest, so you’d be lowering your odds of winning that series too” is an argument too far. Any difference in the NLCS looks to be very small.
If the Dodgers win with their current plan, they’re still set up to start Kershaw in Game 2 of the NLCS on full rest and Hill in Game 3 on full rest. So they’d still get both of them during the four games that are guaranteed to happen and a total of four starts from them if that LCS goes 7 games.
Dave’s plan – which I agree is better for winning the NLDS – would put Hill in Game 1 of an NLCS and Kershaw in Game 3 on full rest. So you’re still getting those guys both into the first four games and a total of four starts if the series goes 7 games. I guess there’s a slight benefit from the possibility that Hill could pitch in relief in a Game 7 on 2 days’ rest.
I understand logic for pitching your best pitchers as soon as possible in a series – in part to hope to win a series as quickly as possible and rest everybody, in part because of possible use on short rest either starting or from the bullpen, in part to set up better for the next series if you do win – but the difference doesn’t look to pencil out as all that much as long as the two best starters are pitching somewhere in the first 3 games of a 7 game series. And the Dodgers have already lost the chance of their ideal of having Kershaw in Game 1 of an LCS followed by Hill in Game 2.
I don’t know why this hasn’t come up, but apparently Hill isn’t available on short rest b/c of the blister thing. The Nats radio said he would be available for a short RP role. That strikes me as an awful idea because then you will have burned Hill and Urias on Thursday and they would both next be available for game 3 of an NLCS. But if you save Hill then you can start the NLCS Hill, then Kershaw, each on full rest, and you’re basically full strength.
Disagree strongly. See my comment above spelling out that it should matter very little where Kershaw and Hill pitch within the first 3 games of the NLCS. You still guarantee one start from each of them in the LCS and get each of them twice on full rest in a 7 game series (unless either Game 2 or Game 3 is delayed a day due to weather).
The focus needs to be on winning Game 5 to reach the LCS, not worrying whether Hill is going to be set up to start Games 1 and 5 of a possible LCS versus Games 3 and 7.
The other thing that would be worth mentioning is that the Nats started Joe Ross today and plan for Scherzer on Thursday. I’ve always wondered if a team isn’t best making their lesser ace (Scherzer) duck the other team’s stronger ace (Kershaw) in hopes of giving up one but winning another. It’s not that Scherzer isn’t amazing. Just not Kershaw.
Kershaw isn’t even Kershaw.