I agree with this. If Hughes kept pitching and got into more trouble, nobody would be against bringing in Mo. So I say don't let the trouble start in the first place. He only had to get 2 outs.

The thing is, if you let Hughes go even just until he allows a baserunner, you have the chance to save Mo for the next day. With a 3-run lead, allowing one baserunner is absolutely no harm. Then bring in Rivera, who no one would argue can hold a 3-run lead with a baserunner and two outs to go. Plus, then Rivera gets a save, which I'm sure the Yankees wouldn't say no to.

You're not pointing out that it was a four-run lead when Hughes came into the game. He pitched an insurance run for the Yankees away already. I think Girardi thought that if Hughes had a 1-2-3, Rivera gets a sit. But as soon as anyone reached or (obviously) scored, the proper move was to bring in his best reliever and slam the door.

*EDIT*

in addition, I thought it was conventional wisdom around here that managing pitchers according to the vagarities of the save rule is worse than socialism and Nazi-ism combined. I'm surprised to see it used as even a secondary argument.

But that's got absolutely nothing to do with what I've been saying. You can read what Pettitte himself said after game 4, about how "he'd never battled so hard for a postseason win and that his mechanics were abandoning him," and you're telling me that that's who you want starting game 6---on 3 days rest?

Let's set aside that despite your use of quotes, who you're actually quoting is Boswell, not Pettitte, and focus on the substance: sure, why not? What does one have to do with the other? Perhaps if he had said, "I was tired and I felt like I couldn't throw another pitch," but he didn't. He said he battled hard -- so what? -- and his mechanics were a problem. (Yes, bad mechanics can result from fatigue, but he didn't say he was fatigued.)

Wouldn't it make far more sense to have a fully rested Pettitte available for any role in game 7, in case Sabathia's third straight short rest start winds up like it did last year, against the same team? Maybe not to you, but then I guess that's what makes for horse races.

Wait, so asking a starter to pitch on so-called "short rest" is like asking him to catch bullets with his teeth, because after all he hasn't done it in a while, but asking a starter to relieve -- something Pettitte has only done 3 brief times in the last decade (never, FWIW, in the postseason) -- is an act of managerial brilliance? If we're worried about having pitchers break from their normal routine, that seems like a rather significant one.

Even assuming Pettitte would be a good reliever, the most you can say is that all else being equal, it would be nice to have him available to relieve. But all else isn't equal; in order to achieve that, you need to waste a start on Chad Gaudin. It would seem pretty damn stupid to lose a World Series because you decided to keep Andy Pettitte on the bench so that you could play Chad Gaudin instead.

I'd have absolutely yanked him in favor of Mariano at the end of Game 3 like Girardi did, but I don't think the BBTF intelligencia has come to a definite consensus about whether that was correct yet.

Rivera's already getting warmed up at this point. It's not going to be true "day off" regardless for Rivera, so the difference in his rest is not going to be that large. I think it's clearly the right call - this is the damn World Series, win the damn game.

I think rr's #97 is a very good articulation of how the three days / four days / five days rest issue isn't one where aggregate, context-adjusted numbers are necessarily all that useful. There's probably a lot of variation among pitchers on how they handle different amounts of rest, and probably individual pitchers likewise have lots of variation in how they handle rest depending on how they've prepared for it. These are issues that managers and trainers and coaching staffs have far more information on than we do, and really all we can do is watch the outcomes, while recognizing that the characteristics of these pitchers which coaches and managers might know still don't determine outcomes, even if they play a role. rr said it better. But I hope the point is made.

For me, I think that the large gap in quality between the #3 and #4 starters on the Yankees makes it very hard for me to criticize Girardi for these moves. Especially since odds are heavily that they win the World Series.

BTW, Melky looked awful frisky in the dugout for someone with a bad hammy before the game. If it were the regular season, how long would he be out?

Also, the Yankees are winless in the playoffs when Melky Cabrera doesn't appear in a game. WINLESS!!!!!

The Yankees have basically the perfect staff, in terms of pitcher quality, for a three-man rotation. Their #1 starter is far better than any of their other starters, and their #2 and #3 starters are pretty even, while being far better than their #4 options. Dividing the starts up 3-2-2 follows pretty obviously. The Yankees would need to be very confident that either Burnett or Pettitte would have major struggles on short rest to do anything but a 3-man rotation.

Would you bet on Ryan Howard or Mark Teixiera's numbers being better going forward?

I almost typed "Alex Rodriguez", but I think he and Tex are having completely different types of difficulties.

I think rr's #97 is a very good articulation of how the three days / four days / five days rest issue isn't one where aggregate, context-adjusted numbers are necessarily all that useful. There's probably a lot of variation among pitchers on how they handle different amounts of rest, and probably individual pitchers likewise have lots of variation in how they handle rest depending on how they've prepared for it.

I think the "aggregate, context-adjusted numbers" are useful as a first-order assessment of whether there's anything here to discuss. And, in this case, running those numbers shows Gaudin/Burnett v. Burnett/Pettitte to be a tossup in terms of the Yankees' odds of winning at least one of those two games. Because of that, the individual variations among these three pitchers become the key to your answer, and you're right there that Girardi has more information than we do. But at a minimum, "aggregate, context-adjusted numbers" are useful in understanding that this is a legitimate debate with two legitimate sides to it.

One thing I thought was cool last night was the way that Madson pitched to Jeter after going down 2-0. He threw back-to-back fastballs, 92 and 91 mph in the middle of the plate. The first was thigh-high, the second belt-high. Jeter took the first and bounced the second to Rollins. Madson basically said, #### it, I'm not walking you, here hit this. And Jeter couldn't do it. I would bet that strategy works much more often than it fails - see Curt Schilling's career for further evidence.

I think the "aggregate, context-adjusted numbers" are useful as a first-order assessment of whether there's anything here to discuss.

To be clear, I agree with that. I just think they're significantly less useful than they are for many other decisions.

As I've said, I can't prove I'm right...but you can't prove you are, either. And more often than not the guy that goes on three days rest doesn't do well. Of course, sometimes he does. But, as Andy said, it's percentages you want to play and that leads to not using your guys on short rest. The Yankees will now do that three consecutive games. Since they just have to win one of those three, the odds are still with them.

Again, what "percentage" tells you that a very rusty Chad Gaudin > Burnett on short rest?

The choice here is not "use your top starters on short rest or use them on regular rest." The choice is to use your top starters on short rest or to not use one of them at all so you can use some guy that isn't one of your better pitchers.

Any chance that Lee can pull a Burnett

I know this is over an hour ago, but I meant to say "Beckett", not Burnett. Thinking of 2003.

Again, what "percentage" tells you that a very rusty Chad Gaudin > Burnett on short rest?

He's not. Nobody has argued or attempted to show that Gaudin was a better choice to win Game 5 than Burnett on short rest. The argument is that a fully-rested Burnett is better than Andy Pettitte on short rest in Game 6 and the debate is whether the Gaudin-(sr)Burnett difference is greater than the (fr)Burnett-(sr)Pettitte difference.

Would you bet on Ryan Howard or Mark Teixiera's numbers being better going forward?

I'd say Teixeira, in large part because the only RHP Howard is likely to face going forward is Mariano Rivera.

I thought it was interesting that the NY Post this morning appears to be jumping all over Teix as the goat of the series, as if they expect one will be needed.

in addition, I thought it was conventional wisdom around here that managing pitchers according to the vagarities of the save rule is worse than socialism and Nazi-ism combined. I'm surprised to see it used as even a secondary argument.

My argument was that the Yankees would like him to pad his historic postseason save total, not that it makes any sort of sense otherwise.

You're not pointing out that it was a four-run lead when Hughes came into the game. He pitched an insurance run for the Yankees away already.

You make it sound like giving up one homerun is an unforgivable crime. It was one pitch. It was not a sign of impending doom for the Yankees. And even if it were, even if he gave up another homerun on the very next pitch, then you can bring in Rivera two get two outs without giving up two runs.

Rivera's already getting warmed up at this point. It's not going to be true "day off" regardless for Rivera, so the difference in his rest is not going to be that large.

I assume he's throwing a lot harder in the actual game than in the warmup throws. Having never pitched at any competitive level, I have no idea if this is true, but it's always been my assumption that the real hard throwing comes when you get out to the real mound and take your warmup throws there. (Does anyone who pitched at a higher level know about this? I'd be interested in learning more about it.)

I think it's clearly the right call - this is the damn World Series, win the damn game.

I don't have a problem with it except that I assume that it's what prevented Girardi from using Mo with a one-run lead in the 8th the next day, which almost cost them big time.

Perhaps I assume too much. It's certainly possible.

Nobody has argued or attempted to show that Gaudin was a better choice than Burnett on short rest. The argument is that a fully-rested Burnett is better than Andy Pettitte on short rest in Game 6 and the debate is whether the Gaudin-(sr)Burnett difference is greater than the (fr)Burnett-(sr)Pettitte difference.

And don't forget that with Burnett in game 6, you also have a fully rested Pettitte available in a game 7 for long relief, as opposed to a Pettitte on NO days rest sitting on the bench, thinking private thoughts to himself about his manager's curious rotation management. That Burnett short rest start may well be the gift that keeps on giving.

You make it sound like giving up one homerun is an unforgivable crime.

Several straight ineffective (or worse) appearances conspired (again, I think correctly) to give him the shortest of short leashes in Game 3. He had given Girardi no reason to be confident that he could get two more outs before giving up three more runs. If Mariano is going to be in the game anyway, I think you give him as much room for error as you can.

He had given Girardi no reason to be confident that he could get two more outs before giving up three more runs.

This is where we definitely disagree. Bases empty, pitcher's spot up... I like his chances. But I'll agree to disagree.

Have we now seen the end of Molina in a Yankee uniform?

And don't forget that with Burnett in game 6, you also have a fully rested Pettitte available in a game 7 for long relief, as opposed to a Pettitte on NO days rest sitting on the bench, thinking private thoughts to himself about his manager's curious rotation management. That Burnett short rest start may well be the gift that keeps on giving.

Also don't forget that if you start Jerry Hairston at 3B, then you have A-Rod available to pinch hit, and what could be more valuable than having A-Rod coming off the bench for you?

It's certainly possible that Burnett on 3 days rest is the best option in this situation, but it's a little odd to just declare that there's very little difference between 3 and 4 days rest. I find it hard to believe that modern 5 man rotations and 4 days rest for starters have evolved randomly.

#89---"I'd go to war with Cole Hamels."

You better hope his gun never jams, because if it does,he'll stamp around the foxhole for 2 minutes, and then quit.....

Also don't forget that if you start Jerry Hairston at 3B, then you have A-Rod available to pinch hit, and what could be more valuable than having A-Rod coming off the bench for you?

Yes, that's exactly like it.

It's certainly possible that Burnett on 3 days rest is the best option in this situation, but it's a little odd to just declare that there's very little difference between 3 and 4 days rest. I find it hard to believe that modern 5 man rotations and 4 days rest for starters have evolved randomly.

Again, even if pitching on 3 days rest and 4 days rest is absolutely identical, there's a clear difference between them over the course of a season: 25% more innings. That's a reason to go to 5 man rotations. But that is an irrelevant consideration right now.

Also don't forget that if you start Jerry Hairston at 3B, then you have A-Rod available to pinch hit, and what could be more valuable than having A-Rod coming off the bench for you?

Yes, that's exactly like it.

Andy's argument is that it's better not to use a player because then you have the ability to bring him off the bench. If you think it's a silly argument, you're right; that's the point I was making.

Also don't forget that if you start Jerry Hairston at 3B, then you have A-Rod available to pinch hit, and what could be more valuable than having A-Rod coming off the bench for you?

For one game where leverage means a lot, being able to pick and choose the spot that Rod hits in might actually have some value, though probably not enough to swap out the man's SLG for Jerry's over four ABs.

Andy's argument is that it's better not to use a player because then you have the ability to bring him off the bench. If you think it's a silly argument, you're right; that's the point I was making.

No David, that's not his argument. That's the argument for him that exists only in your head. His argument, which happens to be mine, so I'm pretty familiar with it, is that most pitchers aren't as good on three days rest as they are on full rest (and there's actually data to back that claim up). He believes that throwing Pettitte when he's on three days rest will be pitching him when he's not likely to be at his best. Additionally, since the club is committed to pitching CC (who has shown a recent ability to come back on three days rest), that having a quality starter in reserve on full rest who can pick him up in the event CC starts to tire is an added benefit to the deployment of resources he prefers.

Your argument throughout this little two-day funfest, where you have consistently failed to address the actual points being made, seems to boil down to: Andy said it, so it must be wrong. Others may disagree, but I find that surprising.

You better hope his gun never jams, because if it does,he'll stamp around the foxhole for 2 minutes, and then quit.....

"I can't wait for it to end," Hamels was quoted as saying after the game. "It's been mentally draining. At year's end, you just can't wait for a fresh start."

He didn't say he wants to quit, and he didn't say he wants to lose; he said he wants it to end. It can end with a win.

Anyway, obsessing over a frustrated pitcher's comments after the game is pretty damned silly.

No David, that's not his argument. That's the argument for him that exists only in your head. His argument, which happens to be mine, so I'm pretty familiar with it, is that most pitchers aren't as good on three days rest as they are on full rest (and there's actually data to back that claim up). He believes that throwing Pettitte when he's on three days rest will be pitching him when he's not likely to be at his best. Additionally, since the club is committed to pitching CC (who has shown a recent ability to come back on three days rest), that having a quality starter in reserve on full rest who can pick him up in the event CC starts to tire is an added benefit to the deployment of resources he prefers.

So you're worried about pitching Pettitte on short rest, but not about pitching him out of the bullpen in an elimination game. Okay.

And you're less worried about blowing a start on Chad Gaudin than you are pitching Burnett and Pettitte on short rest.

And you're worried about Burnett and Pettitte on short rest, but not about Sabathia on short rest.

Wild.

I agree, Ray. I wonder how that quote would be interpreted had A-Rod said it with the yanks up 3-1? It would seem like he couldn't wait for it to be over to enjoy it.


You could also interpret Hamels as wanting his struggles to end. As in, I want to get back to dominating. Anyway, yes, much ado about nothing.


EDIT: just want to be clear that i agree with 128, not 129. Gaudin may have sucked and it may be bad form for Andy (or anyone else, say, me) to crow about accurately predicting Burnett would suck. But it seems equally bad form for folks to use Burnett stinking the joint up as proof starting him was a brilliant strategic decision. At best you can say it's a tossup - Gaudin most certainly wouldn't have lost two games last night.

Pettitte's career averages over 162 games are 17-10 with a 3.91 ERA. His HR/9, BB/9, and K/9 are 0.8, 2.8, and 6.6, respectively. 6.4 innings per start.

On 3 days rest over his career (14 starts, 87 innings) he is 4-6 with a 4.15 ERA. His HR/9, BB/9, and K/9 are are 0.6, 3.9, and 7.2. 6.2 innings per start.

Those stats of Pettitte on 3 days rest are from b-r's career splits page, so I presume they don't include playoff starts. And they likely stretch back several years, so I don't know how useful they are anyway.

But they don't signal a Huge Problem.

And you're worried about Burnett and Pettitte on short rest, but not about Sabathia on short rest.

Wild.

Wow! That's some All-Star quality misinterpretation. It's precisely because he's worried about CC on short rest that he wants a fully rested Pettitte as plan B.

So you're worried about pitching Pettitte on short rest, but not about pitching him out of the bullpen in an elimination game. Okay.

And you're less worried about blowing a start on Chad Gaudin than you are pitching Burnett and Pettitte on short rest.

And you're worried about Burnett and Pettitte on short rest, but not about Sabathia on short rest.

Wild.

This is an empirical question. People have run the numbers. Pitchers perform better, on average, on 4 or 5 days' rest than on 3 days' rest. Again, if you run the numbers, assuming everybody involved is "typical", the choice of whether to start Gaudin or Burnett in Game 5 was almost a perfect toss-up. I think in SG's sims over at RLYW, the odds of Philly winning both of Games 5 and 6 changed from something like 10.4% to 10.7% with short-rest Burnett being the slightly better option.

But those numbers are so close that one can reasonably suggest other things which might alter them enough to affect the outcome. For example, historically, Burnett has performed better on 3-days' rest than 5-days'. That's an argument in favor of using Burnett. On the other hand, Andy Pettitte is old, which may be an argument in favor of not using him on short rest in game 6 (and hence, using Gaudin in Game 5).

All Andy is saying here is that one other consideration, which may shift those percentages (and remember, a swing of 0.5% changes your answer here - it's that close a decision) is that if you throw Gaudin in Game 5 you'll have two of your top 3 starters available for Game 7 on full or nearly-full rest.

But you know all of this already.

So you're worried about pitching Pettitte on short rest, but not about pitching him out of the bullpen in an elimination game. Okay.

I don't like pitchers without a recent history of throwing on short rest throwing on short rest in the postseason. I think the end of a long season, where they've already tossed a lot of innings, is the worst time to decide they can probably use less rest between starts. Moreoever, the numbers suggest guys from the five-man rotation era don't perform very well in that situation. I haven't seen any studies about how starters moved to the pen for the postseason perform, but offhand I don't recall it causing many problems. If you've got data that suggests my off-the-cuff impression is inaccurate, I'd be happy to revisit my thoughts on the matter.

And you're less worried about blowing a start on Chad Gaudin than you are pitching Burnett and Pettitte on short rest.

Ultimately, yes. For the reasons stated above, I'd rather take a shot with Gaudin in one game then go with pitchers I believe will not be at maxium effectiveness in consecutive games, particularly when I only need to win once.

And you're worried about Burnett and Pettitte on short rest, but not about Sabathia on short rest.

Actually, I'm kind of worried (as much a person who hates the Yankees more than anyone else on the planet hates anything else on the planet can possibly be worried) that CC may not have a lot left. He's gone on short rest twice already in the last two weeks. Which is one reason I'd like to have a fully rested starter like Pettitte in reserve.

But the Yankees have committed to pitching CC three times, and I can't disagree with that. Over the last two seasons he's demonstrated that he can handle a heavier workload than most pitchers. So I'd let it ride with the big fella, though I'd like to have a nice Plan B in the event the horse comes up lame.


Wild.

Wacky Stuff.

A few points I haven't seen made yet:
1- there was, when the decision was made, a slight chance of rain on wednesday. Even slight possibilities of postponement make a big difference.
2- burnett didn't throw too may pitches last night, did he? I'm sure he's good for a couple of innings in G7.
3- pettitte would presumably be available to loogy utley/howard in an emergency in G7 even on no rest.

I can't wait for the playoffs to be over just so I don't have to read Gamingboy's endless stream of vomit anymore.

Jesus cristo, Weekly J, you are a world class jerk-off. Who does this? You and you alone. Isn't there an ESPN forum you can go hang out in?

1- there was, when the decision was made, a slight chance of rain on wednesday. Even slight possibilities of postponement make a big difference.

As kind of anti-short rest hardcase, it would have to be a substantial chance for me. But you're right, a potential postponement of Game 6 would change the calculus for most.

2- burnett didn't throw too may pitches last night, did he? I'm sure he's good for a couple of innings in G7.

I'd think so, though I'd wonder how eager Girardi would be to go back to him after his stellar outing in Game 5.

3- pettitte would presumably be available to loogy utley/howard in an
emergency in G7 even on no rest.

I would hope so.

It only affects game 7, but Thursday looks like a wash at this point. If the Phils can win game 6, we might yet see another Lee/Sabathia matchup.


I would like CC on 4 days rest vs. Lee on 3 there.

On the other hand, Andy Pettitte is old, which may be an argument in favor of not using him on short rest in game 6 (and hence, using Gaudin in Game 5).

All Andy is saying here is that one other consideration, which may shift those percentages (and remember, a swing of 0.5% changes your answer here - it's that close a decision) is that if you throw Gaudin in Game 5 you'll have two of your top 3 starters available for Game 7 on full or nearly-full rest.

I've noted several times that Andy Pettitte hasn't pitched on 3 days rest since 2006, and that he's now 37 years old.

Well, here's a game that he started on 3 days rest back when he was only 28---10 hits and 5 earned runs in 3.2 innings, against the A's in the rubber game of the 2000 ALDS. Small sample size, sure, but when has Pettitte ever shown that he can be up to speed on 3 days rest?

Well, here's a game that he started on 3 days rest back when he was only 28---10 hits and 5 earned runs in 3.2 innings, against the A's in the rubber game of the 2000 ALDS. Small sample size, sure, but when has Pettitte ever shown that he can be up to speed on 3 days rest?

? I quoted his regular season performance on 3 days rest in #131.

If someone has his postseason performance on 3 days rest, be my guest.

All Andy is saying here is that one other consideration, which may shift those percentages (and remember, a swing of 0.5% changes your answer here - it's that close a decision) is that if you throw Gaudin in Game 5 you'll have two of your top 3 starters available for Game 7 on full or nearly-full rest.

Yes, but that sounds like a bad thing, not a good one. The reason you'll have them is because you won't have used them. Actual use sounds a lot more productive than potential use, especially since the only way you get to realize that potential is if the first guy is doing badly and your team is in the hole.

Well, here's a game that he started on 3 days rest back when he was only 28---10 hits and 5 earned runs in 3.2 innings, against the A's in the rubber game of the 2000 ALDS. Small sample size, sure, but when has Pettitte ever shown that he can be up to speed on 3 days rest?

When has he shown he can't be? When has he shown he can pitch in relief? Why would you think he'd be effective out of the pen?

Pettitte has pitched five postseason games on short rest. He's 3-1 with a no-decision (which his team won). The last such outing though was in 2003, and three of those were in the 1996/97 postseasons. Not doing the legwork for the total stats, but here are the relevant games.

Game 5, 1996 ALCS WIN
Game 5, 1996 WS WIN
Game 5, 1997 ALDS LOSS
Game 5, 2000 ALDS ND (WIN)
Game 2, 2003 WS WIN

If someone has his postseason performance on 3 days rest, be my guest.

He did it twice in 1996, with great results: 8 innings, 2 ER in Game 5 of the ALCS after a 121-pitch effort, 8.1 innings of shutout ball in Game 5 of the World Series after a short outing the previous game.

He's done it twice since. In 1997, he gave up four runs in 6.2 innings to the Tribe.

In 2000, he had the ugly 3.2 inning start against the A's Andy referenced above.

If this were 1997, I wouldn't be uncomfortable starting Pettitte on 3 days rest. Since he hasn't done it in the postseason in nearly a decade, or in any game in more than three years, now isn't the time I'd want to dabble.

Edit: Missed the 2003 game. Tremendous outing.

If someone has his postseason performance on 3 days rest, be my guest.

3-1, 2.80 in 5 starts, if I did my math right.

He's done it twice since.

As #142 notes, his Game 2 start in the 2003 World Series was on 3-days' rest (he went 5 innings in Game 6 of the ALCS). He pitched 8-2/3 innings allowing 1 unearned run with 1 walk and 7 Ks. Granting that it was 6 years ago, that's not really an argument against Pettitte's ability to pitch on short rest.

So, in other words, the sum total of evidence is that Pettitte has largely been successful on 3 days rest.

Yes, we're going back over a decade for some of this. But even if we ignore that there's still no evidence that he can't do it.

Besides, Andy asked "when has Pettitte ever shown that he can be up to speed on 3 days rest?" Well, "ever" includes a decade ago. So now that it's been shown that Pettitte has performed fine on short rest, both in the regular season and in the postseason, is Andy going to change his tune?

For a change of pace, let's note that 7 of the last 8 teams to trail 2-3 and finish the WS on the road, as the Phils are doing, did not wind up as World Champs. Only team to do that since the '68 Tigers are: the '79 Pirates.

The only teams to win game 6 on the road since 1975 when trailing 3-2 are the '97 Indians (who lost game 7) and those same Pirates.

It's very rare for a team to do this, so it would be great to at least get to Game 7 to add another story line.

Also, this will be the 58th out of 101 possible 7-game series (tossing out 1903, 1919, 1920, 1921) to have lasted six or more games. This decade (2000-09) is the first since the 1910s to feature more "short series" (<= 5) than long series (>=6) (6 short, 4 long). Perhaps that is the best evidence that there is no Black Sox-style stuff happening in baseball, given the $$ windfall that would accrue from an extra game...

...which makes you wonder why someone hasn't suggested that the Series gets extended to 5 out of 9. The TV ratings probably won't support such an idea, actually.

Selig et al would doubtless prefer to have the results from 1950-99, where more than two-thirds of the WS (33-16) went 6+ games. Best decades for long WS: 50s (8-2) and 70s (7-3).

Besides, Andy asked "when has Pettitte ever shown that he can be up to speed on 3 days rest?" Well, "ever" includes a decade ago. So now that it's been shown that Pettitte has performed fine on short rest, both in the regular season and in the postseason, is Andy going to change his tune?

Can't speak for Andy, but not me. He hasn't done it since 2003 in the postseason or 2006 overall. It doesn't mean he can't do it. I just don't think he'll pitch very well tomorrow.

Can't speak for Andy, but not me. He hasn't done it since 2003 in the postseason or 2006 overall. It doesn't mean he can't do it. I just don't think he'll pitch very well tomorrow.

Well, we can certainly hope you're right.