Complete game averages per team since 1954 per decade

[Goofy]

1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's

Baltimore 45.85 40.00 63.80 29.10 14.50 8.50

Boston 45.33 34.40 52.30 29.90 10.90 5.00

California ----- 28.80 51.90 29.30 13.80 5.33

ChiSox 56.33 36.80 40.30 24.70 13.40 8.16

Cleveland 57.33 41.10 37.80 29.10 11.00 6.16

Detroit 58.33 46.60 46.10 33.40 11.00 8.33

K C Royals ------ 42.00 43.10 26.40 12.10 7.33

Milwaukee ------ ------ 44.50 27.80 15.12 -----

Minnesota ------ 49.45 39.70 25.90 11.00 7.67

NY Yankees 47.50 42.80 51.40 22.90 12.00 7.00

Oakland 36.67 31.10 40.10 32.20 9.50 10.67

Toronto ---------------- 39.67 25,70 13.60 9.50

Tampa Bay ---------------------------------- 6.50 5.67

Seattle ----- 21.00 27.67 24.30 13.30 6.80

Washington 41.15 29.10 41.00 29.10 14.00 3.67


Oakland (also was KC A's Philadelphia A's)

washington (also is Texas)

California (Also was LA Angels)

Seattle (Seattle Pilots also included)



You can see the decline of great pitching decade by decade in the average number of complete games. What a sad tale for baseball.

Highs for each team since 1954 (yr beside when accomplished):

Baltimore 71 (1971)
Boston 71 (1974)
ChiSox 65 (1956)
Cleve 77 (1954)
Detroit 62 (1961)
NYY 70 (1975)
Wash/Tx 69 (1954)
Calif 72 (1973)
Oak 94 (1980)
Minn 58 (1963, 1967)
KC Royals 54 (1974)
Mil 62 (1978)
Sea 39 (1987)
Tor 44 (1979)
T.B. will add later when I check results

[Brian McKenna]

interesting info but old news - "great pitching" doesn't go hand in hand with the complete game - if that was the case how would mlb be in business anymore

you're stats are good but the conclusions are off - decline in the complete game = worse pitching = sad product on today's diamond

seems to me that relief pitching has increased the quality of pitching in later innings

[leecemark]

--The drop off is pretty gradual until you hit the 90s. CGs almost disappear then. I don't think that is the result of some massive decline in good pitching. It has much more to do with other factors shifting the advantage to batters. Pitchers have to work alot harder over 6 innings than they often did to get through 9 in the old days. Also there has been a shift in strategy toward relief specialization and trying to find the best matchups (sometimes at the expesne of using the best pitcher).

[Imapotato]

I agree with Leece

The small strikezone increases pitch counts (and frustration) so a lot less CG's but P's today throw about as much as 1960's P's

[DodgerBlue8188]

Back in those days pitchers weren't making 6 figures a game with contracts over 6 million a year. They also didn't use relief pitching like they do now. Even relief pitchers have high contracts so you're going to use them if you got them. Why waste 2 million a year on a reliever if you never use him? I think a lot also has to do with pitchers wanting to stay healthy longer and longer careers. Pitchers pitching 9 innings more games will result in more injuries and shorter careers.