Who should I start?

[TheWarmWind]

I've always been a results oriented guy. I will never start a player who is performing worse than another, no matter what the attributes say.

However, when it comes to giving guys a chance, I'm unsure. Here I am at the end of the season. I've secured the best record in MLB this year. I've got two games left. I have no reason to not start my prospects for these two games.

Here is my issue: I've only got two starts but I have three starting pitchers who I want to get a start in for.

One of them has progressed massively attributes wise in AAA, and is now sitting at 89(!) overall. Thing is, he had an incredibly mediocre year in AAA, and while he is good in a lot of areas, he's exceptional at nothing. He's overreliant on his fastballs as his supporting pitches just quite aren't there yet.

Meanwhile another one is much lower rates overall, but has exceptional control on his fastballs and fantastic break on his breaking balls. Low velocity, but good pitch speed differential, and he was the best AAA pitcher this year.

The third is a knuckleballer. He was probably 2nd or 3rd best in AAA.

Which two do you think should get the start?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Operation Sports mobile app

[decga]

The first & second pitcher. The one with the potential and the stuff would be my no.5 starter, especially if you have a high powered offense. Which could mask some mistakes.

[countryboy]

Agreed with decga.

The first pitcher has the ability and makeup given his rating to be a rotational piece as it stands now. I would let him pitch against big league competition and see how he does.

The second pitcher that was the best in AAA, I would give him a start just to measure where he is in terms of being on the cusp of big league ready or is he better served spending next year in the minors, unless injuries dictate he be called up.

I would use the knuckleballer as a long reliever in either of those starts in case the two above aren't quite ready for big league hitters.

[TheWarmWind]

I should point out that I've been doing trips down to AAA to scout some of these guys. My opinion on the first pitcher isn't just from numbers or a few appearances. I truly believe he isn't ready yet.

I think I'm asking a more general question. At what point does raw attributes warrant getting a chance over on field performance? Because based on both stats AND my hands on experience, the latter two pitchers are more deserving.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Operation Sports mobile app

[countryboy]

I've always given more credit to on field performance over that of ratings, as I don't really focus much on overalls and potential, but I also understand that a young guy being rated highly (89 in this case), he should get a chance to pitch against big league caliber hitters to see how he measures up. And while one game certainly shouldn't be used as a measuring stick because pitchers have off nights, I would make it a point to get him some innings.

Honestly if I were in your shoes, I would pick one of the three to have a normal start, meaning I would put them out there and let the game dictate how long he lasts.

The other game I would take the other two pitchers and split the start, much like spring training. Maybe give them each 3/4 innings, or a set number of pitches and then take it from there.

[coach422001]

What CB said just now is what I'd go with. Start the first two but bring the knuckleballer in mid-game (possibly in both games?). Heck Tim Wakefield could pitch forever in a game unless Aaron Boone was up Two guys get starts and the Kb-er gets innings.

[Caulfield]

not a big fan of pitchers who have to rely on a knuckle ball (in the Show). so he doesn't start for me. IRL I do like knucklers though.

[TheWarmWind]

Well I played game 1 playing pitcher #2 (low velocity, good control, good movement guy). 6 IP, 3 ER, 8 hits, no BB. Not bad considering he was facing what I consider the third best lineup in the majors, and they played all their starters.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Operation Sports mobile app