Complete games are fun, to be sure, but as a strategy they're simply not viable. As the sport has evolved, its tactics have grown more sophisticated, and the evolved role of the bullpen is the perfect example of more intelligent, advanced managing. Pitchers only have several pitches in their arsenal, and by their fourth and fifth at-bats hitters are typically acclimated to their opponent's repertoire. And, of course, fatigue nearly always sets in. Opposing batting averages are significantly higher when starters go deep into games. A fresh Mariano Rivera or Trevor Hoffman, whom hitters have not yet faced, are far tougher to hit than a tiring starter. Even the role of middle reliever, not as high-profile as the closer, has become the home of increasingly talented pitchers in recent years. I love a complete game as much as the next guy, but I'd rather see my team's closer in the ninth inning than an ace with over 100 pitches under his belt.

On a related note, one thing that really bothers me is when people claim that modern starters are inferior compared to Grove, Young, Spahn, etc. Just because they don't throw as many innings doesn't mean they're not as talented; in fact, they're probably better. The athletes in all sports with quantifiable means of comparison between eras - track, cycling, swimming, and so on - have vastly improved over time. There's no reason to think that pitchers are different. As training, strategy, and the understanding of biomechanics have improved, pitchers have unquestionably gotten better. I agree that stats cannot be compared between eras, but there's no doubt in my mind that Johan Santana and Pedro Martinez would be Hall-of-Famers in any decade.

Learn more about this author, Ben Goldfarb.
Click here to send author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about The case for more complete games?
We want to hear your view. Write now!