With which I largely agree, contrarian23.
Because I find this an interesting and worthwhile thread, I would make a couple of more general observations, putting me up to about 4 cents worth.
Any owner is smarter than Sparky, because owners are human and Sparky is not. Nevertheless, Sparky is in one way---his ability to compute---superior to most humans. Humans cannot see, or do not care about, what Sparky sees; and Sparky certainly doesn't care about what humans see.
Secondly, let's look at the question of "caring." Humans do care, at least sometimes, whether a certain pitcher is brought or not, and such is the basis of the complaints. Recently, across many disciplines, there has been a burst of literature hashing over the not-unfamiliar proposition that humans are risk-averse when they make decisions. Most of them, some contend, would rather avoid losing something than taking a risk to gain something.
I suggest, then, that human baseball mangers quite often will manage in a "risk-averse" fashion, but Sparky never will; he will only manage so as to maximize the overall probability of gain. By and large, as you point out, this tends to work. Consider, however, the special situations, which while rare can nonetheless be spectacular.
By the latest reports, the Air France flight went down last year because, being strictly faithful to available inputs and to the absence of key inputs due to icing, the fly-by-wire systems and computers on the plane abruptly shut themselves down, the effective result, which was complicated, being to deny control of the aircraft to the men flying it. In another case, it has been credibly suggested that one of the factors in the financial meltdown---and in no way am I suggesting that human wrongdoing was not everywhere present in the matter---was that too much trust was placed in certain computer alogorithms. These algorithms worked fine, most of the time---except that they relied 100 percent on a certain slice of historical data, which did not enable to them to understand or react when something unexpected happened.
The point being, with regard to pitchers and baseball games, that 10 games a season blown because of what most humans would see as "incorrect" decisions on Sparky's part, are a lot of games to lose in that way, in highly competitive leagues.
(Humans being humans, also, there is surely a bias in all the complaints in the direction of looking at how many times Sparky gets it "wrong" rather than how many times he gets it "right.")
Still, I would like to see Sparky be much more flexible, i.e., be more willing to relinquish control to human managers.
Undoubtedly, as you say, this is quite difficult indeed for programmers to accomplish; and in a business sense, you get the programming you are able to pay for. That the sim works as well as it does is a credit to its creators.