One game.
Make the Captain count.

World Series Game 5: make the Captain earn the multiplier

Milwaukee at Tampa Bay · October 28, 2026 · 8:00 PM Eastern

My first-choice Captain: Jacob Misiorowski. My preferred hitter Captain: Jackson Chourio. My preferred salary-saving Captain: Cooper Pratt.

This is a projection-led Game 5 playbook built from the CourtEdge projections MIL @ TB export supplied for tonight. The decisive question is whether Misiorowski creates enough separation from the hitters to justify an $18,600 Captain salary. In this snapshot, he does: his 18.76 base projection becomes 28.14 at Captain, and the best feasible six-player construction with him there reaches 70.07 projected points. That is the strongest projected result in the tested pool.

That establishes a starting point, not the identity of tonight’s eventual winning Captain. A home run, a stolen base, an early pitching change, or an unexpected substitution can reorder a single-game slate. My recommendation is to build most heavily around the strongest evidence, then represent specific alternative outcomes rather than pretending one outcome is certain. The alternative Captain should change the way the other five roster spots tell the story.

The inputs that actually drive this edition

The supplied export contains 90 players, with 20 positive projections: two starting pitchers and eighteen hitters. Those twenty form the research pool. Zero-projection reserves and relievers are not assigned invented production. The file’s Scored column is zero-filled and is not treated as a set of final results. Its DFS_ID field is retained as a source identifier; official DraftKings contest salary and roster-ID matching remains a separate prerequisite for entry export.

The source game total is 6.0, with implied totals of 3.2 for Milwaukee and 2.8 for Tampa Bay. These are values inside the uploaded snapshot, not refreshed sportsbook prices. They support examining a pitching-led construction, but do not establish how the runs, hits, strikeouts, or walks will be distributed. A six-run total can still produce one spectacular hitter, a poor starting-pitcher outing, or a collection of ordinary scores.

MLB lists Misiorowski and Rasmussen as starters; Rasmussen is working on three days’ rest. That makes workload review especially important. The uploaded batting orders are the orders used here: Chourio–Bauers–Yelich–Contreras–Turang–Frelick–Pratt–Mitchell–Hamilton for Milwaukee; Díaz–Aranda–Caminero–Hicks–DeLuca–Simpson–Williamson–Vilade–Walls for Tampa Bay. Later published lineup reporting agrees with those orders. An older projected-lineup article lists a different arrangement, so it should not override a newer posted order or the final contest screen.

The supplied ProjOwn figures are used as general source ownership estimates. There is no separate Captain-ownership column. Consequently, a 29.4% estimate next to Pratt does not mean 29.4% of the field will Captain him. We also do not have a calibrated joint-outcome model, a generated contest field, or completed payout simulations. No numbers in this article should be read as measured Captain leverage, winning-lineup probability, or simulated ROI.

How the Captain ranking was tested

I enumerated all six-player groups from the twenty positive-projection players, then tested each member at Captain. The checks used one Captain and five FLEX players, a $50,000 cap, no repeated player, representation from both teams, and no more than four hitters from either team. Under those stated assumptions, 137,660 Captain/FLEX constructions fit. Confirm the actual contest rules before treating that conditional enumeration as an official export validator.

The calculation keeps the source projections unchanged. Captain salary and projected points both receive the 1.5 multiplier. The method proves which lineup has the largest sum of those supplied means within the tested pool and rules. It does not model correlation, duplicate entries, uncertain innings, or the distribution of fantasy scores. Those are different questions and can change which lineup has the best tournament payout profile.

An important result appears immediately: inexpensive Captains can preserve more total projection than an expensive hitter Captain. That does not mean the cheap player is more likely to lead the game in scoring. It means his discounted multiplier can make room for stronger FLEX choices. Evaluate the actual six-player group before rejecting a cheap Captain or crowning the highest-projected hitter.

The eight Captains, ranked for this playbook

This is an editorial priority list, combining the supplied mean, salary effects, and specific game scripts. It is not a mechanically sorted win-probability board. Rasmussen, for example, ranks second by his best full-lineup mean but lower in my tournament priorities because the workload assumption deserves extra scrutiny. Every projection shown is from the supplied file or direct multiplication of it.

1. Jacob Misiorowski — the first Captain I build around

Misiorowski’s $12,400 FLEX salary is expensive, but his 18.76 projection is materially ahead of Rasmussen’s 13.67 and every hitter in the pool. The Captain multiplier adds 9.38 projected points to his FLEX expectation. Chourio’s multiplier adds 5.44. This is why the pitcher deserves the first construction test instead of being relegated to FLEX merely because a hitter Captain feels more exciting.

At Captain he leaves $31,400 for five players, an average of $6,280. The pool contains enough positive-projection hitters below that figure to produce a legal roster without requiring a zero-projection reserve. Pratt, DeLuca, Frelick, Hamilton, Vilade, Williamson, and Walls create several salary paths. The final five choices still need to fit together; cheapness by itself is not sufficient.

His winning script is a productive start with enough strikeouts and run prevention to separate from the bats. The failure case is lost innings, inefficient pitching, or Tampa Bay concentrating its offense against him. One Rays one-off can coexist with a good Misiorowski performance. A roster demanding several Rays hitters repeatedly damage him is a less coherent partner for his dominant-Captain script. I prefer him in the main build, with alternate Captains expressing the branches where that separation never arrives.

2. Jackson Chourio — my first hitter Captain

Chourio leads the hitters at 10.87 projected points and occupies the source leadoff spot. That combination gives him the first offensive claim on the Captain position. The reason is opportunity plus the strongest hitter mean in this file, not a promise that his recent series production repeats. He needs his own scored actions; a successful Milwaukee inning can benefit teammates more than him.

The $14,700 Captain salary matters. His best tested full lineup reaches 65.65 projected points, about 4.43 below the strongest Misiorowski-Captain construction. That gap is the price of choosing this offensive branch under the current means. A tournament build can accept that sacrifice when seeking a different outcome, but should not describe it as the highest-projected construction.

I like Chourio with one or two hitters positioned to share a Milwaukee scoring sequence, especially Bauers or Yelich, subject to the cap. Misiorowski can remain in FLEX because strong Milwaukee hitting and strong Milwaukee pitching can occur together. Rasmussen needs a more careful decision: including him is possible, but a Chourio-led offensive eruption makes the opposing starter less comfortable. The appealing part of Chourio Captain is a path where his production outpaces pitching, not an obligation to roster every expensive Brewer.

3. Cooper Pratt — the strongest salary-saving Captain on my shortlist

Pratt’s 8.56 projection at $6,000 gives him approximately 1.43 projected points per $1,000 of base salary. At Captain he costs $9,000 and projects for 12.84, leaving $41,000 for the remaining five positions. That flexibility changes the whole lineup: his best tested group reaches 67.29, ahead of the best Chourio-Captain group despite Pratt’s lower individual expectation.

The source puts him seventh, which is a real opportunity cost. A cheaper hitter can unlock premium teammates but cannot manufacture plate appearances. His useful Captain outcome requires enough direct offense to make multiplying his points worthwhile. Do not count every teammate’s run as evidence that he was the right player to multiply.

Pratt is particularly interesting when both starters remain viable and salary relief is needed without dropping to an unprojected bench player. The highest-mean Pratt group contains both pitchers, Yelich, DeLuca, and Williamson. That is a specific low-to-moderate scoring construction with affordable hitters, not a broad bet that Milwaukee’s top four all have huge games. His source ownership estimate is 29.4%, so he should not automatically be advertised as an overlooked Captain. Actual Captain ownership is missing.

4. Christian Yelich — a less expensive way to multiply Milwaukee offense

Yelich costs $7,400 in FLEX and $11,100 at Captain. His 8.27 base projection becomes 12.41, while the source batting order places him third between Bauers and Contreras. That position gives his roster partners a useful shared-inning narrative: runners ahead of him can create RBI opportunities, and hitters behind him can convert his times on base into runs.

His lower salary makes him easier to pair with Misiorowski than Chourio is. The best Yelich-Captain full-lineup mean is 66.08, a small edge over Chourio’s best group under this snapshot. My preference for Chourio as the first hitter remains an editorial choice about the offensive lead, not a claim that every Chourio combination outprojects every Yelich combination.

Yelich’s failure case is familiar: Milwaukee scores, but the decisive fantasy events belong to other hitters. Batting in the middle does not guarantee he collects them. His 30.6% source ownership also does not establish low Captain duplication. I use him to express a focused Milwaukee offense branch while retaining salary for pitching or more credible final FLEX players, rather than using a second expensive hitter Captain with no clear construction advantage.

5. William Contreras — prioritize the scoring chain around him

Contreras has an 8.42 projection at $8,400, or 12.63 at a $12,600 Captain salary. The source cleanup position makes him an understandable way to multiply a Milwaukee run-production outcome. A build with Chourio or Yelich in FLEX can benefit when those hitters reach and Contreras supplies the damaging plate appearance.

The cost is substantial. His best tested full-lineup mean is 64.65, lower than the leading cheaper-Captain alternatives. That makes him an offensive tournament branch rather than my default projection choice. If choosing him forces the final roster spot into an unsupported reserve, step back and change the construction. His appeal should come from multiplying a plausible high-scoring event, not from pretending the salary pressure disappears.

The simplest failure case is a quiet personal game within an otherwise productive Milwaukee performance. A walk can help an inning without creating the separation needed at Captain. I prefer Contreras when the roster is deliberately capturing a connected top-of-order scoring sequence. I do not force him into a pitcher-heavy lineup simply because his name belongs near the top of the batting order.

6. Jonny DeLuca — a workable Rays Captain without premium pricing

DeLuca is $5,800 in FLEX, $8,700 at Captain, and carries a 7.87 base projection. The supplied order places him fifth. His approximately 1.36 projected points per $1,000 compares favorably with several more expensive hitters, and his best tested Captain construction reaches 66.95 projected points. That makes him a more practical lower-cost alternative than a token contrarian name.

His Captain outcome needs individual production, not simply a Rays win. A low-scoring Tampa Bay victory can leave the best fantasy score with a pitcher or a different hitter. Consider whether the other five spots express a close game, a Rays scoring cluster, or a strong pitching performance with one productive opposing bat. Those are different branches.

I would rather start with a specific DeLuca scoring story and then choose teammates than stack every available Rays value. Hicks immediately ahead of him in the source order is a possible correlation partner; Williamson is a cheaper downstream salary tool. Both are options to test, not mandatory pairings. The 28.7% source ownership estimate again gives no direct information about Captain popularity. Salary relief is the measurable advantage here; leverage remains unmeasured.

7. Junior Caminero — the explicit counter to a dominant Milwaukee start

Caminero projects for 8.73 points at $9,400. His $14,100 Captain salary produces a 13.10 mean and meaningful roster pressure. In the full enumeration, his best feasible group reaches 62.69 projected points, approximately 7.39 behind the leading Misiorowski construction. This is the largest mean sacrifice among the eight listed Captains.

That does not make the pick pointless. It makes the reason for using him especially important. The case is a concentrated Rays power outcome in which he produces one of the game’s decisive fantasy events. It is not a superior projection calculation. At this price I need his own substantial score, rather than a generic belief that Tampa Bay could win.

A heavy Caminero branch should cause a fresh look at Misiorowski exposure. One home run does not automatically ruin a pitcher’s entire fantasy night, but multiple Rays hitters producing large scores against him can. Keep the roster’s required events consistent. I am comfortable keeping a small counter-script allocation to Caminero, while refusing to promote him to the primary Captain solely because a decisive game feels like a stage for a star hitter.

8. Drew Rasmussen — strong source math, unresolved length assumption

Rasmussen is $11,400 in FLEX and $17,100 at Captain. His supplied 13.67 projection becomes 20.51, and the best roster with him at Captain reaches 68.24 projected points. That is the second-highest Captain-specific full-lineup mean in the entire test. A ranking that omitted him because this playbook prefers Milwaukee would ignore a major part of the supplied data.

The reason he sits eighth in my editorial tournament list is workload sensitivity. Being the announced starter does not establish a normal-length outing. The projection could remain reasonable, or a short appearance could leave the salary and multiplier attached to too little opportunity. I have not silently cut his forecast or invented a replacement one; the original number remains visible beside the concern.

Before increasing his allocation, seek a credible expected role and compare the resulting lineup with a FLEX placement. If his original forecast is accepted unchanged, the mathematics makes him a serious Captain candidate. If the expected role is materially shorter than the source assumes, refresh the projection and rebuild every affected roster. That decision is more consequential than shuffling two similarly priced final hitters.

Up to ten FLEX priorities

These are the ten FLEX players I would examine first for the principal builds. They are not ten players to jam into every portfolio. Captain selection changes which FLEX names fit, and a six-player roster has only five FLEX seats. Players outside this list still exist in the twenty-player source pool; they are not assigned zero chance of success.

Misiorowski and Pratt: start the salary conversation here

Misiorowski in FLEX retains access to the strongest individual mean while allowing a hitter to receive the multiplier. The opportunity cost is that his 18.76 expectation is no longer multiplied. For every hitter-Captain build, compare the actual total against moving him to Captain. Keeping the pitcher is not sufficient evidence that both constructions are equally strong.

Pratt provides the most useful midrange salary release on this shortlist. His base projection narrowly exceeds Contreras, Turang, Bauers, and Yelich while costing less than each. That is a statement about this file, not a guarantee he is a better real-world hitter. His lower batting slot should remain part of the risk discussion. If his projected opportunity changes, the apparent value can change quickly.

DeLuca and Frelick: inexpensive starters with different team stories

DeLuca saves $4,000 compared with Chourio while giving up 3.00 projected points. That trade can materially improve the other five roster spots. At source batting position five he is a useful Rays one-off in a Milwaukee pitching build, or a piece of a more offensive Tampa Bay branch. Avoid interpreting a favorable salary trade as permission to ignore the opposing pitcher.

Frelick is cheaper still at $5,000, with a 6.66 mean and the source sixth spot. His value is the combination of starting opportunity and roster flexibility. He does not need to be a Captain to matter to a winning lineup. At 31.8% source ownership, however, he is not an obvious uniqueness solution. A popular cheap starter can increase overlap even when the expensive portion of the roster looks different.

Yelich and Williamson: paying for lineup position versus buying room

Yelich offers source batting position three at a lower salary than several Milwaukee teammates. He is a natural FLEX consideration when the Captain is Misiorowski or a cheaper hitter. The useful question is whether his offensive expectation improves the complete lineup more than the savings from Frelick or Williamson would. Compare the actual remaining pairs rather than a single isolated player swap.

Williamson is the cheapest positive-projection hitter at $3,600, with 5.88 projected points and source position seven. He appears in the best full-lineup result because that low salary makes the premium combination feasible. That is an important salary mechanism, not proof that he is a strong standalone ceiling bet. If he loses the starting role, several appealing constructions would need to change at once. Do not let a replacement bench player inherit his projection automatically.

Chourio and Contreras: premium hitters need a complete roster

Chourio is the first hitter I would retain when the budget allows it. His 10.87 projection is 2.45 above Contreras and 2.60 above Yelich. Those differences are useful, but they must be weighed against the salary gap. A roster can improve by replacing one expensive hitter when the savings strengthen two weaker positions. Treat the price as part of the projection problem.

Contreras is particularly appealing when the Captain or other FLEX hitters share a Milwaukee run-production chain. His $8,400 cost becomes harder to justify when the roster already contains both starters and another premium hitter. That is where construction discipline matters. A strong cleanup narrative does not authorize spending $50,500 or turning the last roster spot into an unprojected reserve just to keep the preferred names together.

Hamilton and Rasmussen: preserve the reason for including each

Hamilton’s $5,600 salary and 7.49 projection put him close to DeLuca in source value. The ninth batting position is the primary opportunity concern. He is useful when his price completes a coherent lineup; he is less convincing as an automatic reaction to a recent memorable result. Historical winning Captains can inform research without becoming a rule that the same cheap player should be multiplied again.

Rasmussen belongs in the FLEX discussion because the source projects him second overall. His workload question remains exactly the same at FLEX, though fewer salary dollars and fantasy points are tied to the multiplier. A two-pitcher lineup can be appropriate for a low-scoring branch. It should not be treated as a blanket hedge that makes heavy offense from both teams harmless to the roster.

Three salary-checked lineup examples

The following groups are arithmetic reference builds, not three promised tournament winners. They satisfy the tested rules and source salaries. Their point totals are sums of the uploaded means. Use them to understand what Captain choices buy or cost before selecting final entries.

Projection benchmark: Misiorowski Captain; Rasmussen, Pratt, DeLuca, Vilade, Williamson FLEX. Salary $50,000; projection 70.07. This is the highest mean found by exhaustive enumeration under the stated pool and rules. It contains both starters and four affordable hitters. The most important sensitivity is Rasmussen’s assumed production. A shortened role can weaken the benchmark without changing anything about Misiorowski’s own appeal. Vilade is outside my primary FLEX ten but appears here because the exact salary combination wins the mean calculation.

Salary-saving Captain: Pratt Captain; Misiorowski, Rasmussen, Yelich, DeLuca, Williamson FLEX. Salary $49,600; projection 67.29. Pratt’s smaller multiplier expense allows a more expensive FLEX group. The $400 remaining is a consequence of the best source-mean combination for this Captain, not a universal target. This build still depends on the second starter’s role and on several affordable hitters receiving the expected opportunities. A cheaper Captain can improve roster balance while still failing to supply the individual multiplier score needed for a tournament.

Preferred hitter branch: Chourio Captain; Misiorowski, Yelich, Pratt, DeLuca, Williamson FLEX. Salary $49,900; projection 65.65. This keeps the leading pitcher, uses the highest-projected hitter at Captain, and omits Rasmussen. It accepts a lower total mean to express a different outcome. The construction has three Milwaukee hitters plus its pitcher, and two Rays hitters. Neither opposing hitter needs an explosive multi-run inning for the roster to remain plausible alongside a strong Misiorowski performance.

How I would spread twenty research entries

For an illustrative twenty-lineup research set, my initial Captain counts would be Misiorowski eight, Chourio four, Pratt two, Yelich two, Contreras one, DeLuca one, Caminero one, and Rasmussen one. That is 40%, 20%, 10%, 10%, and four allocations of 5%. These are editorial scenario allocations, not optimized exposures or probabilities. Twenty is an illustration, not an inferred entry limit for a contest whose cap was not supplied.

The final twenty should not be selected by Captain quotas alone. A portfolio can use eight Captains while keeping nearly identical FLEX combinations, creating much more dependence than the Captain distribution suggests. Inspect repeated pairs, repeated five-player cores, and the amount of total exposure to each starting pitcher. Changing the multiplier without changing the required game events is a limited form of diversification.

For a single-entry contest, I start with Misiorowski Captain and compare the strongest complete legal groups. If accepting Rasmussen’s forecast, examine the benchmark. If credible role information undermines that forecast, rebuild with a revised input or choose the one-pitcher branch. Do not make a hidden projection adjustment and then present the old projected total beside the changed lineup. Keep the assumption and its numerical effect visible.

Which contests demand the most differentiation?

Bat Flip has 5,228 seats, $80,000 in prizes, and $20,000 to first. Rally Cap has 2,941 seats, $20,000 in prizes, and $5,000 to first. Both put 25% of the pool at the top. The mini-MAX has 11,890 seats and $1,000 of its $10,000 pool at first. Its larger field makes first-place competition very different even though its first-prize share is lower. Neither field size nor top-prize share alone determines the correct ownership target.

Chin Music is a $5 single-entry contest with 1,783 seats, 390 paid places, and $750 to first. It still rewards a strong tournament outcome, but each opponent has one entry. I would not force a weak Captain simply to make that roster feel different. Seek a coherent construction, then evaluate whether a small salary or player change improves the combination rather than adding randomness without a purpose.

Battery is $121 single entry with 55 seats and thirteen paid; Power Alley is $44 with 139 seats and thirty-two paid. Perfect Game is $333 with 100 seats and twenty-two paid. These smaller fields justify evaluating the strength of the full lineup before copying a large-field differentiation policy. Perfect Game also puts one-third of its $30,000 pool at first, so its payout remains concentrated despite its smaller capacity.

Gold Glove is $1,500 single entry with eight seats and two paid. Heavy Hitter is a $26,200, three-seat, winner-take-all Must Fill contest. Those formats are not evidence that a user should enter them, and the entrant list is not a validated skill model. Heavy Hitter’s empty seats are not guaranteed overlay: it must fill. Several other entry caps remain unconfirmed, so no unsupported maximum-entry setting should be inserted into the builder.

Correlation, ownership and the final decision

The most useful stack tonight is a connected scoring sequence within one game, not a rigid multi-game baseball template. Chourio, Bauers and Yelich occupy the first three source spots; Yelich and Contreras connect the middle. A group can benefit from shared runs and RBIs, but each added hitter uses a roster seat that could have held pitching or opposing offense. Four hitters is a deliberate offensive commitment, not a default requirement.

On the Rays side, the source first five provide several possible chains. A Caminero-led roster can test Díaz or Aranda in front and Hicks behind, while DeLuca offers a cheaper fifth-place option. These are conditional connections, not claims that all five must succeed together. A strong Tampa Bay stack should trigger a deliberate review of the assumptions being made about Milwaukee’s starter.

Ownership should be read at the full-lineup level. Adding individual percentages produces a descriptive ownership sum; multiplying them does not give a reliable duplicate count because choices are related through salary, batting order, popular projections, and Captain placement. Without Captain-specific ownership and a defensible field model, avoid labeling a particular six-player roster positive EV or uniquely likely to win outright.

The final pre-entry review is concrete: confirm the posted order and starter role; match the official salary and IDs; reprice Captain at 1.5; verify six distinct eligible players and the cap; review the opposing-pitcher assumptions; and recalculate exposures on the selected entries. Keep the frozen source snapshot for later comparison. After the game, evaluate player projection error and lineup selection separately, because being wrong about a pitcher’s innings is different from choosing a poor combination from otherwise reasonable projections.

My call remains Misiorowski Captain first. Chourio is the first hitter alternative. Pratt is the salary-saving alternative that deserves a real construction test. Rasmussen’s role is the input most likely to change the top projection-led builds. The objective is a defensible decision before lock and an honest record afterward, not a guarantee about the one player who will finish on top tonight.

Sources and calculation notes

Primary numeric input: owner-supplied CourtEdge projections_Baseball_MIL @ TB_38911.csv, slate label 38911. Export timestamp was not supplied. All salaries, projections, batting-order fields, source ownership and source floor/ceiling values remain attributable to that upload. The floor and ceiling quantiles are unspecified and are not used as calibrated probability bounds.

Pitching announcement: https://www.mlb.com/news/brewers-rays-world-series-game-5-starting-lineups-and-pitching-matchup

Posted-order cross-check, October 28 reporting: https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/brewers-run-back-same-lineup-210348855.html

Captain multiplier reference: https://support.draftkings.com/dk/en-us/game-style-showdowns-overview?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010694

Roster-format reference: https://dknetwork.draftkings.com/2020/05/29/beginner-mlb-dfs-game-types/

Contest facts come from the nine October 28 MLB contest descriptions supplied by the owner. Exact cash payout ladders were reconciled to advertised pools. Fill counts are snapshots, not live feeds. The exhaustive projection test covers only the supplied positive-projection pool under the explicitly stated roster assumptions; it is not a contest simulation or a reconstruction of any prior winning lineup.