Love that power

Like many of my generation my introduction to major league baseball came through the medium of baseball cards.  Their appeal to an 11-year old was undeniable.  A small pack of cards illustrated with a picture of a ballplayer on one side and a bio with stats on the other, all packaged with a thin sheet of pink bubble gum, wrapped in colorfully printed waxed paper.  Simply irresistable.  Never had so much been provided for, I've forgotten, probably 25 cents.   Topps the best, Fleer so-so.

One of the first cards I collected pulled me into the game.  I became a dedicated fan of Theodore Bernard "Ted" Kluszewski, the mammoth homerun slugger of the 1957 Cincinnatti Redlegs.  I thInk every kid needs a hero, and Big Klu, as he was called, was mine.  And he earned his nickname, a former tight end at Indiana University, in the day when that position did more blocking than receiving, he was 6-2, 225 with biceps so large he needed to cut the sleeves off his uniform as not to hinder his swing.

https://youtu.be/8fhBsPTLX6w

I am taking you on this trip down memory lane to make a point and confess a bias.  This year's Mariners, now 10 and 2 after last night's 13 to 6 clobbering of KC, resemble greatly those Reds teams Kluszewski played on in the mid-1950s.  I became then and remain now an avowed lover of home-run hitting teams.  Often, a big mistake.

To this day I can recite by memory the line-up of the 1957 Reds, starting at catcher:  Smokey Burgess, Kluszewski, Johnny Temple, Don Hoak, Roy McMillen, Gus Bell, Frank Robinson (yes that Frank Robinson) and Wally Post.  Just to be sure, I went back and checked and I was right!  Although, sadly fot him and me, Klu injured his back and only played 69 games that season, pinch-hitting 50 times.  And, yes, I remember who replaced him at first: George Crowe.

That team had power.  They hit 187 homers in 154 games, which was a lot in those days.  Only one team, the Braves hit more that season.  By comparison, last year only 11 MLB teams hit more with a longer season.  I fell in love with the long ball and have always been partial to home-run hitting teams.

And that can get you into trouble.  Not once in the 1950's did those slugging Reds make it to the World Series.

But we all know, the game is complex and home runs can help generate wins, but hitting overall, pitching and defense are more important.  Just out of curiosity I looked at the correlation between last year's home run totals by wins for each team and the coefficient, the r, is impressive, .54... more homers means more wins.  The r-squared of .29 suggests about 30 per cent in the variance in wins is attributable to homers (leaving the other 70 per cent connected to other factors).  But I'd caution, having fallen in love with homers before, there is always a risk that reliance on home runs can hurt the rest of the offense, increasing strike outs, lowering the number of baserunners from balls put in play through hits and errors and, of course, walks.

But, boy is it fun.  And don't forget the Glavine and Maddux' 1999 Nike commercial: chicks dig the long ball.  https://youtu.be/UjkuJPvMrI8