After dropping two games to the Washington Nationals, the Los Angeles Dodgers are fighting for their playoff lives. That, combined with this weekend's postponed game, left the Dodgers with an unexpected rotation crunch. Before the delay of Game 2, the Dodgers had a very clear opportunity, if they so chose, to pitch their top two starters twice each: Clayton Kershaw on short rest in Game 4 and then Rich Hill on four days' rest in the possible Game 5.
The rain threw that proverbial wrench in the works, meaning that now if Clayton Kershaw pitched on short rest in Game 4, that Rich Hill would also have to pitch on short rest in Game 5, or the Dodgers would have to pitch Julio Urias or some combination of the two in Game 5. With Game 4 and Game 5 both being necessary wins, the Dodgers were forced to decide whether to go with Julio Urias in Game 4 and Clayton Kershaw with five days' rest in Game 5 or short-rested Kershaw in Game 4 and that aforementioned combo in a possible elimination game.
In the end, the Dodgers went with Clayton Kershaw in today's Game 4. The comparison that some are trying to make is the Orioles going with Ubaldo Jimenez instead of Zach Britton. But that doesn't work logically. You use your best relievers early in extra-inning games because of the uncertainty of future leverage compared to current leverage. The benefit of using Zach Britton in the 11th is because it increases the chances the team wins and never has to turn to the much inferior Ubaldo Jimenez in the 12th. The Dodgers are not in that situation. Kershaw could throw a perfect game, striking out 27 batters on three pitches, and it doesn't prevent the Dodgers from having to win with an inferior pitcher on Thursday (not to bash Urias or Hill, but everyone's pretty much inferior to Kershaw). They have to win two games. Kershaw's excellence can't make them only have to win one.
But from a pure numbers standpoint, did the Dodgers choose wisely?