Question about closer usage

[bailey]

My closer hasn't pitched in 5 days. I'm winning on day 6 11-0 so my closer is brought in to finish the game. For the next game, he is 88% rested. Now the question is: is he better off to be 88% rested for the next game than if he had gone 6 days without pitching and remain at 100% rest? Is there a hidden "rust" factor? Because my gut tells me it is always better to be at 100% rest than 88% rest.

[Threnodas]

Originally Posted by bailey

My closer hasn't pitched in 5 days. I'm winning on day 6 11-0 so my closer is brought in to finish the game. For the next game, he is 88% rested. Now the question is: is he better off to be 88% rested for the next game than if he had gone 6 days without pitching and remain at 100% rest? Is there a hidden "rust" factor? Because my gut tells me it is always better to be at 100% rest than 88% rest.

I don't have hard answers, but my two cents: I thought the only rust in OOTP was from long-term layoffs, like 2 weeks or more, which motivates both Spring Training playing time and rehab assignments after IL stints. Obviously, neither of those applies in PT, and neither applies to your closer. In real life, a closer who hasn't pitched in close to a week may well get that maintenance inning to avoid rust, but I'm not aware that it matters in PT. Perhaps your 100% rested closer came in because everyone else could use a rest? By pure PT strategy, of course you'd rather have your worst relievers mop up an 11-0 game until their arms explode, but I can also see why the AI doesn't play it that way. Your closer's going to get some non-save appearances simply to share the workload, but this was just a silly-looking time for one.

[bailey]

In my case, my long reliever had not pitched in 6 days, a longer layoff than my closer.