Consecutive complete games
Posted by Andy on April 17, 2008
The Royals recently threw 2 consecutive complete games, one by Brian Bannister and one by Zack Greinke.
That makes them the 4th team to accomplish the feat since the beginning of the 2007 season:
Team StreakStart Streak End Games W L CG SHO SV IP H R ER BB SO HR ERA HBP WP BK Opponents +-------+-----------+-----------+-----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ KCR 2008-04-13 2008-04-14 2 2 0 2 0 0 18 8 2 1 2 7 0 0.50 1 0 0 MIN,SEA CHW 2007-09-19 2007-09-20 2 1 1 2 1 0 17 11 3 3 1 10 0 1.59 2 0 0 KCR PIT 2007-08-12 2007-08-13 2 2 0 2 1 0 18 8 1 1 1 8 0 0.50 0 0 0 SFG LAA 2007-07-30 2007-07-31 2 1 1 2 1 0 17 15 2 2 4 12 0 1.06 0 0 0 SEA
Going back to 1997, there are 4 teams who have had 3 CGs in a row:
Team StreakStart Streak End Games W L CG SHO SV IP H R ER BB SO HR ERA HBP WP BK Opponents +-------+-----------+-----------+-----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ MIN 2004-07-05 2004-07-07 3 3 0 3 3 0 27 13 0 0 2 24 0 0.00 3 0 0 KCR OAK 2000-09-08 2000-09-10 3 2 1 3 2 0 27 12 4 2 0 16 1 0.67 0 0 0 TBD MIN 1999-07-30 1999-08-01 3 2 1 3 1 0 26 17 3 3 4 17 1 1.04 0 1 0 ANA ATL 1998-06-14 1998-06-17 3 3 0 3 1 0 27 12 3 1 2 22 1 0.33 0 1 0 MON,FLA
And here are the leaders since 1956:
Team StreakStart Streak End Games W L CG SHO SV IP H R ER BB SO HR ERA HBP WP BK Opponents +-------+-----------+-----------+-----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ DET 1968-09-06 1968-09-19 12 10 2 12 3 0 108 81 20 20 18 98 11 1.67 0 1 0 MIN,CAL,OAK,NYY OAK 1980-08-09 1980-08-17 9 6 3 9 0 0 86.1 63 20 17 12 43 9 1.77 1 0 0 SEA,MIN CHW 1956-09-16 1956-09-23 8 5 3 8 0 0 75 55 22 18 12 34 4 2.16 0 1 1 WSH,NYY,KCA
I would bet that if we could go all the way back to 1901, there were lots of times when teams when 20, 30, or more games in a row with CGs, since there were periods back then when use of relief pitchers was very rare. It's ironic the type of reversal we've seen. Back in the very early 1900s, it was probably a significant pain in the butt for the manager if he had to bring in a relief pitcher.
These days, most teams have a relief pitcher who is accustomed to throwing every 2 days, or 2 out of every 3, etc, and having a few complete games in a row could potentially mess up such players. Of course, that problem is easy to fix--you can always have a relief guy throw a bullpen session to keep his arm fresh.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Wow. Last year the Royals had only 2 complete games all season.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:15 am
The last Royals team to accomplish this: that pitching powerhouse the 2000 Royals.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Well, if you count the playoffs, the White Sox threw four consecutive CG in 2005.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
The Royals have already pitched two more CG this year than the 2007 Marlins, Rangers and Nationals combined!
April 17th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Did you notice the team records in these streaks? How about the 1956 CWS who went just 5-3 in 8 straight CGs.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I just ran the WP% of CG's by decade. Before seeing the numbers, I would have assumed that more recent teams would have had a better record for two reasons. 1) A pitcher has to be pitching really well to be left in and 2) Double complete games which has to have a loser, are rare these days.
In fact the opposite is true. The only reason that I can think of is that years ago a pitcher would have to be pitching really poorly to get yanked.
Here are the league wide records for teams who's pitcher pitched a complete game of at least 8 innings or more.
2000-2008 1087-338 (.763)
1990-1999 2400-757 (.760)
1980-1989 4821-1461 (.767)
1970-1979 7807-2121 (.786)
1960-1979 6833-1112 (.860)
1956-1959 2402-502 (.827)
April 17th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
"The only reason that I can think of is that years ago a pitcher would have to be pitching really poorly to get yanked."
But by the '50s, I'm not sure that's really true. There were a lot more CGs than now, but a lot less than there had been 50 years prior. The results surprise me too though. The only thing I can think of is that the 8-inning CG loss is probably becoming a much bigger %. Pitchers are much less likely to last 9 than 8. If he's winning, a closer will handle the 9th.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Yeah, Johnny's got it. If you could go back to 1900, I suspect the W% for CGs is more like 55%, since so many games were double-CGs back then. By comparison, all rates 1950-present are "high.", and the introduction of the closer is probably the primary difference. Like I said in the original post, because of how bullpens are used now, there is actually some pressure for a manager to use a reliever even when not truly needed, so it screws up the logic of when we'd see a CG.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
The record for most complete games in a season is 148, by the 1904 Red Sox (or whatever they were calling themselves back then). What their longest streak was, I don't know.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I just ran some data for 1956 and 2006.
In 1956, 1232 games were played (2464 chances for a CG), 16 teams, 154-game season. In 1458 of those (59%), a team used no more than 2 pitchers; in 482 (20%), it used 4 or more pitchers.
In 2006, with 30 teams playing 162 games, there were 4860 chances for a CG. In only 669 (15%) did a team use 1 or 2 pitchers; in 2863 (59%), it used 4 or more.
In 1956, 10 pitchers was enough, and the 15 position players included guys who were almost good enough to start. A manager could rest his regulars and get decent production from his bench.
Now a roster carries 13 pitchers and, too often, 1 healthy catcher. Jose Reyes has to play every inning at shortstop, even when his play in September shows him clearly out of gas, because the Mets have only one infield reserve. (High salaries for regulars also dictate that reserves are low-budget versatile fielders who mostly can't hit.)
It would be an interesting list -- all the multiple factors that have led to this very different use of pitchers, 1950's to now.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:08 am
In response to David in Toledo,
This is really becomes a problem in the American League with the DH. Looking at the Red Sox right now, they only decent bench players they have would be Ellsbury (or Crisp, depending on how you look at the centerfield position in Boston). The rest of the players on that Boston bench have no major league experience before this year.
Youkilis was obviously worn out by September last year, and I wouldn't be surprised if they fall apart in the last months of the season.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Regarding the roster size and the fact that there are fewer position players on the roster:
I am a firm believer that the DH should be abolished, but some opposed to this since it would eliminate certain players from making the roster (there are other reasons, too, of course). It has been proposed that to alleviate this concern, the roster could be increased to 26 or 27 players. This would help increase the number of position players AND perhaps reduce opposition to eliminating the DH. Does anybody know if this has been seriously considered at the winter meetings as a possibility?
April 21st, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I'm sure it's just a matter of time before managers complain they are hamstrung by their 15-man pitching staffs and need bigger rosters.