What happened to the Complete Game?

There once was a time when there was no such thing as a bullpen; back when starting pitchers went the distance every time; back when Cy Young established records that nobody will ever touch in the history of baseball, such as his 511 career victories and 316 losses and 749 complete games. My, how baseball has changed, even in the past 30 years. While it's no record, Tom Seaver, who finished pitching in the 1980s, pitched 231 complete games. However, today's baseball is completely different than that of yesteryear. Just tonight, Roy Halladay threw a complete game, which raised his league-leading number this year to 5. That's right; the league leader has a whole 5 complete games. To put that into perspective, it's also greater than or equal to all but three entire TEAMS in baseball this year, and one of the three is his own Toronto Blue Jays. So the question to be answered is "What happened to the complete game?"

Well, for starters, the introduction of the closer began the demise of pitchers going the distance. Some of the earliest closers included Roy Face, Goose Gossage, Tug McGraw, and Gene Garber. These pitchers became closers mostly due to the fact that they weren't effective as starters and couldn't pitch at their best for extended periods of time, leading them to become relief pitchers. Even through this time, there were still many pitchers who completed games regularly, like the aforementioned Seaver and others such as Bert Blyleven, Bob Gibson, and Phil Niekro. However, that was rapidly changing, especially with the increasing use of the bullpen and "specialization" of relief pitchers, who are used for match-up purposes with hitters late in games. For those who don't know what "specialization" is, it's simply matching up a left-handed pitcher against a left-handed batter, or a right-handed pitcher against a right-handed batter, which historically favors the pitcher.

In any case, this use of the bullpen began the downhill spiral of starters frequently exiting in the 6th or 7th inning of games, even when they are pitching well. Combining this with the lowering of the mound in 1969, starters have pitched fewer and fewer innings as the years have progressed. Because of this, along with the introduction of free agency thanks to the infamous Curt Flood, statisticians developed a ridiculous statistic called "Quality Starts" in order to measure how many times a pitcher had a "Quality Start" throughout the year. Sure enough, pitchers started using this statistic in order to get organizations to pay them more money based on this statistic.

The statistic is not only stupid, but it's also one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard of. First of all, the qualifications for a QS are unbelievable: 6 innings pitched and 3 earned runs or less. That's it. Back in the day, if you only pitched 6 innings every start, you were considered a reliever, and you would certainly not be a starter anywhere in baseball. Secondly, how could you arbitrarily say 3 runs is quality? What if he leaves after 6 innings, gave up 3 earned runs, and his team is losing 3-0? How can that be considered a quality performance if the team loses 3-0? If you meet the bare minimum qualifications for a QS every start, 35 in a year, you would have an ERA for the year of 4.50, which, even in today's game, doesn't qualify you for the top 20 in the league. In fact, based on this year's current statistics, a 4.50 ERA would put you 59th on the list of all major league pitchers, but you would probably be first in the QS category. A 4.50 ERA is by no means a good one for the year, as middle of the road pitchers usually hover in that area, certianly not "quality" ones.

To say the least, the standards of pitching in baseball have dropped dramatically throughout the years. One can make an argument that the increase in offense and mega-juiced superstars (cough, Barry Bonds, cough) over the years has played a role in the decreased role of the starting pitcher and the complete game, but at the same token, you cannot blame a severe drop on solely one thing. Fact is, pitchers don't come as they used to. They are not strong enough to pitch for longer periods of time, and don't have the "rubber" arms that those of history do. It's one reason that we may not see another 300-game winner in baseball history. The longer that a starting pitcher stays in the game, the more opportunities they have to win. Cy Young always pitched complete games, so he either won or lost depending on how he pitched, not anybody else. How would you feel if you started a project, did 7/9 of it, then had to give it to someone else to work on, then they handed it off to another person to finish it off? That's essentially what starting pitchers go through every time they are on the mound. They simply cannot go start to finish like they used to. As Cy Young once said "Pitch them once every three days and you'd find they'd get control and good, strong arms." Pitchers instead go every 5 games now, don't have the strength, and don't pile up the wins as a result. Keep in mind that the great Roger Clemens, who has been pitching seemingly forever, has 118 Complete Games, which by today's standards is some sort of record.

R.I.P. The Complete Game "They don't make them like they used to."