On Monday's YES broadcast, Michael Kay was discussing CC Sabathia's 2008 numbers. These numbers include 10 Complete Games (CGs). Kay then discounted these CGs by Sabathia by saying that these numbers would be remarkable in yesteryear, but "Not in an era where complete games aren't important anymore given the role of the bullpen."
Really, Michael? Complete games aren't important?
Given the increased role of the bullpen, wouldn't complete games be more important? Such would save the bullpen for when they are truly needed. A fresh bullpen usually is an effective bullpen.
True, complete games may increase the risk of an injury to some pitchers based on the fact that usually more pitches are needed to accomplish the feat. But if you have a 6'7", 290LB horse like a Sabathia who can accomplish them without injury risk why wouldn't they be important? What about a guy like Roy Halliday (9 CG last year) who Michael consistenly fawns over?
Also, a pitcher who throws complete games means that he is effective. Effective pitchers aren't important I guess... Find me a big league manager or GM who says CGs aren't important. I bet you a large reason why the Yankees gave Sabathia $161MM was his ability to pitch a full 9 frames.
Come on man, you are making my job too easy. In accordance with your annoying shtick of asking big leaguers in the booth next to you questions that tee ballers could answer, shouldn't you just have asked Kenny Singleton if complete games are important?