Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
The unorthodox Jack McKeon has done everything right so far in 2003, turning around the Marlins and guiding them to the brink of a championship. Tonight, he risks it all by sending his ace, Josh Beckett, to the mound on three days' rest.

The 23-year-old missed most of May and all of June with elbow problems, and has never started on short rest in his big league career. Though Beckett’s four-inning relief appearance against the Cubs was courageous, it was hardly awesome. The first four batters he faced hit the ball very hard; three to the warning track and one right at an outfielder. In his third inning of work, he got two more long outs and surrendered a home run to Troy O’Leary. There's no telling how effective he'll be tonight, or how long he'll last.

If this hunch works out, McKeon will be hailed as a genius. If it doesn't, he's painted himself into an uncomfortable Game 7 corner, with Carl Pavano, also on short rest, facing Mike Mussina. To me, it's like a boxer ahead on points in the late rounds trying to land a haymaker but leaving himself wide open for a knockout counter-punch. In other words, unnecessary and ill-advised.


I know, Jack's alternatives aren't great, and he doesn't want to concede Game 6. Mark Redman has been getting knocked around, Dontrelle Willis is overworked, and Rick Helling is past his best-before date. However, Andy Pettitte might not be as good as he was in Game 2, and it's possible that the Fish could have won a shootout. If it did go to a deciding game, at least the Florida ace would be fully rested, with Pavano in the bullpen, so the skipper wouldn't be as vulnerable to second-guessing.

Obviously, McKeon doesn't care what anyone thinks, and he's convinced Beckett will be just as good tonight as he would be tomorrow. If Jack's wrong, he'll be subjected to as much criticism as Grady Little and Dusty Baker combined. I would support this choice if his team was in a must-win situation, but under these circumstances, I just don't get it.

If Beckett is at his best, the Marlins could maintain their incredible record of having never lost a postseason series. They will have a great chance to become two-time world champions, even though they've never won a division title. But if Josh falters and they don't win tonight, I think it's all over, and Jack's decision to rush his ace back into action will be remembered as a classic managerial blunder.

Anyway, that's just one story line in what could be the last baseball game of a fantastic year. Should the Fish win, most observers will look back on Joe Torre's decision to entrust Game 4 to Jeff Weaver as the turning point, with Boomer's back spasms as "evidence" that Team Steinbrenner was too old, but it's mostly been a lack of offensive production. As a team, the Yanks are hitting .163 with runners in scoring position, including 0-for-6 with the bases loaded. Alfonso Soriano (assuming he starts) and Jason Giambi will be under a microscope tonight.

Recent history, strangely enough, is in the Yankees' favour, as Pistol pointed out in another thread:

The only team to take a 3-2 lead on the road in a World Series over the last 22 years and prevail was Toronto, which beat Atlanta in six games in 1992. Seven other teams in that span failed.

Last year, it was the Angels coming home to win the last two games. The year before, the Diamondbacks. Is it a trend, or does it mean the visitors are overdue?






Trader Jack's Big Gamble | 11 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_peteski - Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 02:52 PM EDT (#87647) #
This makes no sense to me. This is the move of a desperate team, only this team is actually winning the world series. If you're down 3-2 this is exactly what you do, but since you're winning, why not try to cobble together a win in game 6 with Redman or Willis or some combination, and if you lose, you have your best guy Beckett on full rest, with Pavano available for a couple innings if you need him in game 7. You'd be set up very well for game 7. Why lessen your chances in both games when you only need to win one? I hope it works out for them, but this is a mistake.
Mike Green - Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 02:53 PM EDT (#87648) #
Jack McKeon is a great manager, but I disagree with his decision to start Beckett on 3 days rest, with Pavano on 3 days rest in reserve. Beckett's performance in relief against the Cubs is not the same as this situation. On 4 days rest, in Game 7 of the World Series, Beckett would have a good chance at going 9 strong innings. I think the likelihood of this happening on short rest is low. It is also not clear to me how much better Pavano on 3 days rest would be than Redman followed by Pavano in Game 6 would have been.

The Yanks' strategy should be clear. Make Beckett go long into counts, stay close and then make hay in the middle-late innings. The same with Pavano.

Still, can somebody please explain this to me. The Yankees are 1.7-1 favorites to win this game according to the Star. On what theory precisely, with Beckett and Pettitte going tonight, do the Yankees deserve to be anything more than narrow favorites? Aaron Gleeman made a lot of imaginary money this season with a .500 record by betting on underdogs.
_Jay - Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 03:17 PM EDT (#87649) #
As to the betting line...very easy explanation. It may sound counter-intuitive but odds are not necessarily about the relative strengths of the teams. Remember that "Vegas" wants to make money, without actually gambling themselves. The safest way to do that is to have an equal amount of money bet on both sides and just earn revenue on the "juice" or percentage not returned to the bettor. New York is a huge metropolis containing a lot of bettors. My guess is that the hometown Brooklynites and Bronxites etc. are putting significant money down tonight. Also, the casual fan who may just know the Yankees better will be more likely to lay cash on the pinstripes. In order to coax some other money on the fish, the line in this case has been heavily skewed to make it seem like the Yankees are heavily favoured.

Now on to the McKeon move. At first I agreed with everybody else and felt they should rest Beckett for tomorrow. But then when I thought about it I realized that was just the roto owner in me not wanting my young stud getting hurt. The way I look at it is this...If you rest Beckett for tomorrow, you are saying "yes I want my best guy starting game 7." The problem is there may not be a game 7. The other problem is that the Yankees already have their best guy starting game 7 (another one of my roto studs by the way). Whether Beckett pitches tonight or tomorrow, their best opportunity for a win is tonight. You may as well give yourself every opportunity to get that win because I wouldn't want to be facing a Mussina-Clemens-Wells (possibly)- Rivera combination in game 7.

Just my two cents though....Either way it will be a great game. By the way, today I officially hate my next door neighbour. He and his father have flown to NYC and are attending tonight's game.
_Jays fan - Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 03:34 PM EDT (#87650) #
Brilliant decision. This is not leaving your starter into the 8th inning after he was in a heck of trouble in the 7th (say what you want about boston, but that was really a move to sooth the ego of a superstar not a move you make to win a series).

You can't just give a game away to the yankees in the world series since anything can happen in game 7. Remember the As in game 3 against boston ... a great chance may never come again. By going for it now they give themselves two very good shots at winning the world series rather than one excellent one.

Given recent history in this series, there is a very good chance the yankees will struggle to score runs. And if they do knock becket out of the game, florida has another shot at it tomorrow, whereas if the yanks would knock becket of the game tomorrow there wont be a second chance.

I also remember petite getting knocked around a few times (remember arizona, and some starts I saw in toronto) ... wouldn't it be something to lament if the fish score a lot of early runs and then see redman squander the lead.

Lastly, having becket pitch on sunday with pavano looking in from the bullpen isn't a good idea. It puts extra pressure on somebody when you got people looking and monitoring your every move. And do you pull becket after he gives up two singles in row ? two runs in a row, three ...
_Andy - Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 06:01 PM EDT (#87651) #
I guess Jack figures his best chance to win is tonight, and he wants his ace out there. The Marlins put up an 821 OPS against lefties, 732 against righties; and they could see Mussina-Clemens-Rivera in Game 7.

Lineups are up:
(http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2003/news/story?id=1646539)

Jeter
Johnson
Williams
Matsui
Posada
Giambi
Garcia
Boone
Soriano

Bad knee or not, I'd have Giambi higher instead on getting on base in front of Garcia and Boone. But Joe Torre knows more about how his knee feels than I do.

Pierre
Castillo
I-Rod
Cabrera
Conine
Lowell
Lee
Encarnacion
Gonzalez
_Dr B - Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 07:17 PM EDT (#87652) #

I know, Jack's alternatives aren't great, and he doesn't want to concede Game 6. Mark Redman has been getting knocked around, Dontrelle Willis is overworked, and Rick Helling is past his best-before date.


Coach, I think you have put your finger on it right there. McKeon is giving himself a chance in game 6 and game 7 rather throwing all his eggs in the game 7 basket. It's a tough choice, and you are right he'll probably be excoriated if it blows up in his face. Unlike Grady Little's horrible meltdown I think his choice is defensible. I think Florida have a better chance of winning game 6 with Beckett than game 7 with Beckett (against Mike Mussina) and they only have to win one. We'll soon see what happens of course, but I'd have made the same choice as McKeon here.
_peteski - Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 07:56 PM EDT (#87653) #
Here's the thing. Pitchers do not have a very good record in the playoffs coming off only 3 days rest. As Rob Neyer reported,

"Since the introduction of the current postseason format -- six divisions, two wild cards -- there have been 31 games in which one of the starters was going on three days rest and the other had at least four.

The short-rested starters won only six of those 31 games. Ouch."

"Still, it's hard to sugarcoat this. Pitchers starting on three days' rest simply haven't fared well. Since 1995, short-rested starters collectively have a 5.20 ERA"

And if you remember the A's-Red Sox series, Zito started on three days rest and lost. He pitched five great innings but fell flat in the sixth. That's the big problem with starting on three day's rest is that, the pitcher can't be relied upon to pitch as deep into a game as normal.

Now, maybe this is a fluke, but why take that risk when you only need to win one of two games? And it's not like it would be impossible to win game 6 with a Redman/Willis combo. They've pitched well before and the Marlin offense has been pretty good. I'd take a mild chance of winning and an excellent chance of winning over two good chances of winning any day if I only needed to win one game.
Coach - Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 08:02 PM EDT (#87654) #
Well said, Peteski. You were a nice horse, too.
robertdudek - Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 11:14 PM EDT (#87655) #
And as you remember, Andy Pettitte started Game 2 on 3-days rest. I think the 3-day/4-day thing is a very pitcher-specific thing. If the pitcher feels confident and can execute all his pitches as he can on normal rest he should perform just as well.

McKeon probably felt that Beckett on normal rest against Mussina was a dicey proposition. He probably felt that since Pettitte is a lefty and his club is pretty much righthanded, his best chance to win a game was today (Game 6).

McKeon knows his pitcher and I think going with your 2 best starters is a defensible strategy. If it hadn't worked I definitely wouldn't have called it a blunder. Calculated risk - yes. But as they say, fortune favours the brave.
Mike Green - Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 11:19 PM EDT (#87656) #
Time for me to eat humble pie. But I'm glad to be wrong when it comes to a Jack McKeon decision.
Coach - Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 11:27 PM EDT (#87657) #
Jack is now a legend, Beckett's a hero, and they deserve it.
Trader Jack's Big Gamble | 11 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.