Two things have happened in the past five to six years that have tossed a lot of the pitching metrics out the window, quality starts included.
The first is the sudden acceptance of the strikeout as "just another out" and the rapid rise of the .243 hitter who strikes out 60% of the time, but who hits 25 to 40 dingers a year. Second is the determination that pitchers ought not be allowed to face the opposing team's lineup more than twice in one game; once your starter is heading into the third time through, it's time to pull him. At either that point or 100 pitches, but by no means are most pitchers allowed to both face a lineup more than twice through the order *and* exceed a 100-pitch count.
It's not just the Cubs' pitchers, guys. It's the entire game of professional baseball at pretty much every level. The fact is that if you are facing guys who would rather foul off six or seven pitches, waiting for the "one" pitch he can barrel, and mostly end up striking out, you're going to throw 15 to 25 pitches an inning. Even if you are pitching a perfect game. The hitters have to co-operate in letting opposing starters go longer into a game, by trying to get base hits in general and not waiting for the ball they can hit out of the park, and thus letting pitchers get through some innings on only five to ten pitches.
If you're an ace pitcher and you not only pitch a perfect game but strike out all 27 batters you face, and if you are playing a team that's really good at fouling off pitches and grinding at-bats, that 27-K perfect game can run 180 to 200 pitches. Twice the number of pitches *any* manager will allow a starter to throw these days -- with the possible exception of guys like Scherzer, who don't have pitch count restrictions. But I just tried to come up with another name in addition to Max in terms of guys who don't have pitch count restrictions, and couldn't come up with any. Fuck, even Kershaw now has to come out of games in the 6th or 7th, just because Roberts is concerned that he'll get injured. Again.
So, unless you are facing a team that is hyper-aggressive and thinks that putting the ball in play, regardless of whether you can barrel it, is the best approach -- and there are NO teams in the major leagues who play like that any more -- then I don't care if Jesus Christ is pitching, he's gonna get pulled after six innings, maybe seven if he's lucky. Even if His Father is the manager.
So, what does a 6-inning start mean in this kind of world? That's the maximum length of an outing for 9 out of 10 pitchers these days. So, a QS is any start where you don't get chased real early and you give up less than 2 runs. And Boras has got to stop working out deals where his pitchers get bonuses for pitching more than 200 innings in a season, seeing as the guy who pitched the *most* innings in 2017 pitched 205. And there were only one or two other guys who even got over the 200 inning mark.
So, QS is meaningless. Judging a pitcher worthy of a Cy Young only if he pitches at least 200 innings is also out the window. Even the ERA means a lot less than it used to, being designed to even the playing field between those pitchers who complete all of their games (the former norm) and those who didn't manage to complete a few of their games during a season. Runs per innings pitched may have to become the new way to look at it.
I think WHIP is going to start being a much more basic way to judge pitchers, I agree with CSF77 on that. But at some point, any pitching metric that is anything "per 9 innings" is going to change to "per an inning" for ease in calculating, and because we're no longer trying to judge the few pitchers who don't complete all their starts against the vast majority who do. Remember, when ERA was devised as a stat, clubs carried four or five starting pitchers and no relievers; if one guy couldn't complete a game, another starter completed it for him.
Or, not to put too fine a point on it, just recall that Don Drysdale was the closer for the 1961 Dodgers...
