A lot of executive decision-making is based on "how will I look if the decision is wrong," which is often given more weight than "what gives us a better chance for success." In sports, a common manifestation is to play veterans instead of rookies. An earlier comment to this thread was to the effect that wanting Pinto to start ahead of Suzuki could show a short memory as to Hicks' performance last year, as if one rookie failing to jump from AA to the majors suggests that all rookies should get more seasoning at AAA before going to the majors.
Besides the fact that Pinto performed successfully last year in AAA, major league (and Twins) history is full of players that successfully started on opening day in their rookie years, many of whom with little or no AAA experience. However, if that rookie bombs, then fingers get pointed at management, for wrongly placing the young player in harms' way, whereas if a veteran doesn't perform well, then the player seems to bear the brunt of the blame, under the theory that he failed to live up to past performance.
The decision-maker is the same person, but starting the veteran seems to pose less risk to the decision-maker, because there is a greater acceptance that starting unseasoned players, while possibly being higher reward, is also higher risk. This decision-making bias will be even stronger when a recent event shows the risk of of starting the unseasoned player, even if it could be proven statistically that choosing a rookie would lead to a better result the majority of the time.
GREAT forum name.