It's B, according to upper level CS. Here is the relevant portion of the ticket exchange.

ME:
...
Alex Smyth (LHP) - 92 control, 75 vLH, 68 vRH, 82 P1, 65 P2, 59 P3, 49 P4, 35 P5, 86 velocity, 51 GB/FB
Tommy McIntyre (LHP) - 87 control, 83 vLH, 65 vRH, 74 P1, 70 P2, 51 P3, 88 velocity, 35 GB/FB

Alex has better control, a significantly better first pitch, a better third pitch, 2 "extra" pitches, better effectiveness vs. RH (the hand of the batter at the plate) and a better GB/FB rating. The *only* things McIntyre is stronger at are P2 (70 vs 65) and velocity (88 vs 86). The P2 difference in favor of McIntyre is more than outweighed by the P1 and P3 differences in favor of Smyth (82 vs 74; 59 vs 51) and the fact that he has 2 additional pitches to go to.

So, are you really telling me that the extra two points (88 vs 86) in velocity makes McIntyre the "most effective of the bunch in that situation" or is there some additional rating that I have overlooked?
...

CS:
And the pitch grades. While one has more pitches, some of the lesser pitches are below average so they can serve as a negative.

suprising... so I tried to put some of the information together and then figure this out, here is what I see.  As someone pointed out, the sim does each at bat, not each pitch, therefore it must use a weighted average of all pitches, so I made my own.  The first weighting numbers I guessed were .4, .3, .2, .15, .1.  If the pitcher doesn't have 5 pitches, then you only use the pitch weighting for the pitches they have.  Using these numbers, I got 65.17 for pitcher A and 67.56 for pitcher B.  Slight advantage to pitcher B.

Now, what I imagine is, if you have a high pitch calling catcher then the weightings change, putting more emphasis on better pitches, so I changed my weights to .6, .4, .15, .1, .05, and then the averages were 69.77 vs 69.61, slight advantage to A. 

This has opened up my thought about Catchers, that a defensive catcher might be more important to specific pitchers.  In my example above the "better" catcher increased A's numbers by 7% and B's numbers by 3%, now I know my numbers are not accurate, but the thought process seems to be, meaning that I should put my defensive catcher in on days that he has a better chance of effecting the game...

Any thoughts?

I have 5 starters on my Dover Change Ups team, their numbers are:
78, 66, 43, 31, 39 (9.1%)
78, 74, 50, 47 (5.1%)
91, 72, 68, 59, 38 (5.7%)
81, 60, 60, 29 (5.7%)
82, 80, 72, 37 (4.1%)
(note, I've somewhat changed my formula to take into consideration that more pitches is better, so subtracting slightly from denominator for each pitch over 2).

When I used my better catcher vs worse catcher calculation I get a big difference in gains, like 9.1% vs 4.1%.  New strategy in effect!

Personally, I wouldn't take anything from CS as fact.  I think sometimes they are guessing as much as we are.

Also, since relievers are less likely to have many pitches, it seems that catcher PC is less important for relievers than starters. 

That's not uncommon.

tommy, CS has stated that PC on a C is only an OAV modifier.  So no matter what combos and varieties of pitches different pitchers have, a good PC C will help them both equally.

I had never seen the oddity taz describes prior to noticing it in that world.

I've seen that before, rarely, but it happens... 

Soursurfer, that sucks, I thought maybe the game was deeper than I had anticipated, which would have been cool...

Posted by soursurfer on 8/5/2011 11:36:00 AM (view original):
tommy, CS has stated that PC on a C is only an OAV modifier.  So no matter what combos and varieties of pitches different pitchers have, a good PC C will help them both equally.

I had never seen the oddity taz describes prior to noticing it in that world.

This is true. I have lead the league in ERA many, many times with cathcers that have PC's below (sometimes WELL below) 50. PC is vastly over-rated. I think in part due to the common misconception that pitches are individually called, when in fact they are not.

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 8/5/2011 5:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by soursurfer on 8/5/2011 11:36:00 AM (view original):
tommy, CS has stated that PC on a C is only an OAV modifier.  So no matter what combos and varieties of pitches different pitchers have, a good PC C will help them both equally.

I had never seen the oddity taz describes prior to noticing it in that world.

This is true. I have lead the league in ERA many, many times with cathcers that have PC's below (sometimes WELL below) 50. PC is vastly over-rated. I think in part due to the common misconception that pitches are individually called, when in fact they are not.

Seasons/Worlds?

Ones you've been in even, Z...don;t be coy, you know it's true. PC is overrated.

I know you and your ego can't forget me running all over the AL seasons 8-11 in Major Leagues with regards to Pitching.....especailly since it was your team I was beating out, and the overrated Nen...

It can't be just a weighted average of your pitches. If that were the case, adding an extra pitch would always be a detriment.

Posted by gwvsjohn on 8/6/2011 7:46:00 AM (view original):
It can't be just a weighted average of your pitches. If that were the case, adding an extra pitch would always be a detriment.

It's probably a little more complicated than that-- for example, since sitestaff has said the cutoff is 30 for a pitch to help, maybe it's a weighted average where each pitch you don't have is valued at 30 and calculated into the average-- but it is fundamentally a weighted average of some sort.