Wednesday, February 4, 2015

My Plot for Batman V Superman



There are two movies I am SUPER (pun intended) excited for in the next two years: Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens and Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. There are also other movies I'm primed for (like Suicide Squad) but these two soar far above the rest for me. In today's internet age there are no shortage of rumors and plot leaks for both blockbuster films, and all it does is get me drooling with excitement. As I read various leaks and supposed details it gets me trying to piece together what the story could be. After a long and agonizing period this is what I have currently devised for the superhero movie based on things I've read and some midrash to fill in the blanks.

The movie will take place following the events of Man of Steel, mainly taking place 2 years later. Within two years several things have happened for our main character: that kiss at the end of the last film was no one time thing as he is still in a relationship with Lois Lane (her and Clark live together now), Superman has become a local hero in Metropolis for not only his defeat of Zod, but his efforts to help rebuild/rescue people from the destruction of the city and his one man war on crime. Coupled with Lois' support both as a reporter and in interviews (in which Morgan Edge keeps trying to challenge if Superman is truly friendly) the city is very supportive of Superman. As for Clark, along with being in a great relationship, we learn he is trying to get the chief to let him do a story on a mysterious vigilante in Gotham City dubbed "The Batman", but to this point Batman is considered more of an urban legend than a real person and Clark is not allowed to pursue the story. Instead he is left doing entertainment news, and covers billionaire playboys Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor who are news as they help fund the rebuilding effort in Metropolis. Clark uses the opportunity of reporting on Wayne to go to Gotham and investigate Batman.

Similar to the flashback style employed in Man of Steel, we get to see Batman in action through flashbacks during Kent's investigations of the capture of a major criminal. What we also begin to see is that some of Kent's most recent investigations begin to reveal Batman acquiring materials that will be used in his confrontation with Superman. Essentially, Batman is preparing for the possibility of having to defeat Superman. Although this may not be entirely clear yet. Batman develops a four-pronged approach to defeating Superman: 1. Allowing Superman's superior power to create a false confidence (creating an element of surprise) 2. Kryptonite he steals from Lexcorp (at which time we learn Lexcorp developed it by studying Zod's remains) 3. A Mechanized, armored batsuit 4. A transporter device that he developed from technology he learned was used for a covert military mission (that the government developed trying to mimic the phantom drive of the Kryptonian ships in MoS, hence the previous connection to Superman and why Batman was interested in it).

During these investigations of Batman acquiring these technologies, Clark becomes concerned that Batman is not a hero but a thug. Likewise, we see modern day shots of Bruce Wayne keeping tabs on Superman, using various techniques to determine his power levels, learning the fact that he draws energy from the sun, dialoguing with Alfred his concerns that Superman is more dangerous that helpful, may not be able to be stopped, and is a ticking time bomb. At this point we see him refining the transporter weapon after the first two models "did not seem reliable" upon further examination.

Then while in Gotham, Clark becomes Superman when he spots a crime in action that Batman also is going to stop. In this interaction (perhaps similar in the distrust and tension found in DC Comics Man of Steel Vol 1, which I will note was used to provide some source material for MoS) Superman at first tries to stop Batman, but somehow is convinced he is trying to do good. Batman then fires a stern warning back at Superman about "leaving his territory" of Metropolis and having no business fighting crime in Gotham. Batman both claims Gotham for himself, and warns Superman that it is dangerous for him to feel he can govern and act anywhere since he is not trusted or welcome everywhere. Superman does not take Batman seriously, and in fact makes a show of power that suggests Batman couldn't stop him if he tried (think his attitude at the end of MoS with regard to the government sending drones to spy on him). Batman warns him that in the future, uneven as it seems, he will stop him.

Then comes the major turn of events. Lois is in peril while covering a story abroad and Superman goes to rescue her. This causes an international incident as Superman is considered an American agent and not welcome in this country to do his heroing. This event leads to threat of World War, which Morgan Edge uses to turn even the public of Metropolis against Superman. In order to prevent war the US Government is forced to denounce Superman and brand him an enemy of the state. In order to enforce this ruling, the government hires Lexcorp who claims to have developed a weapon able to hunt down Superman. Lexcorp introduces Doomsday, a weapon developed from the study of Zod's body. The Doomsday creature/villain/weapon is released and fights Superman to a standstill until Superman retreats to Gotham.

Convinced of Superman being dangerous, seeing the destruction being caused now by his bout with Doomsday, Bruce Wayne prepares to make good on his promise when Superman flees to Gotham. Superman is already weakened from his fight with Doomsday, making his epic showdown now with Batman more believable. This begins with the famed scene teased at the San Diego Comic Con of Batman in his mechanized-armor suit turning on a bat-signal (essentially revealing his location) and Superman appearing above him. The two poised for a fight. The showdown begins and goes pretty evenly as Batman's suit protects him from a weakened Superman and his fists are kryptonite loaded and deal real damage to Superman. Note: by this point Bruce should have expressed somewhere that he feels he can only last so long against Superman, but if he can just weaken him enough to attach the transporter technology he believes he can rid us of Superman without having to kill him, instead sending him away from earth so the people will be safe. In the end, just when Superman seems to start to get the upper hand after an initial beat-down Batman uses his mad ninja skills to secure the device sending Superman away. As this happens and the dust settles, we see news cameras having captured it all: this is the first public reveal of Batman.

At this point Superman appears in Themyscira, Wonder Woman's home. Away from our Sun, Superman is weakened and vulnerable. Some form of threat comes upon him, where he seems in even more peril and beaten until nearly dead until he is rescued by Wonder Woman, who sees him as "another man" and therefore protects him. We soon come to find she has been protecting a man named Colonel Steve Trevor, who was part of a covert team sent to Themyscira by the military when it was testing the phantom drive technology. As Superman seems as vulnerable as a normal human, she sees him as the same as Trevor and protects him. Steve Trevor recognizes him immediately and pushes Wonder Woman the need to revive a close to death Superman (who has now endured beatings from Doomsday, Batman, and some villain/creature on Themyscira).

Meanwhile, back on earth, Lex Luthor throws a "Superman is gone" party at his place, which Bruce Wayne, being a fellow rich playboy gets invited to. While at his place Bruce, being sneaky, comes upon Luthor in some secret room talking with Morgan Edge about how he manipulated the entire events: he had Edge get the public to turn on Superman, he set up the attack on Lois overseas knowing Superman would save her (thus causing the international crisis), he even allowed Batman to steal kryptonite and then had Doomsday weaken and herd Superman to Gotham where Batman "finished him off" thereby eliminating the only person who was more popular and powerful than he in Metropolis, and the only person who could stop Doomsday whom Lex controls (and was paid handsomely to create).  At this revelation, Bruce feigns drunkeness so he can stumble in the room and get into a rowdy Brawl with Lex, beat the snot out of him for all the manipulation and destruction, and "accidentally" in the scuffle switch off Doomsday at which point we cut to the creature/weapon shutting down like an organic robot. The fight continues until police show up to break it up. We then cut back to a still Doomsday, here a faint signal sound and watch as he switches on and instantly becomes malevolent.

While cuffed in the back of police cars for this altercation, still bloodied, news comes in that Doomsday has begun destroying Lexcorp's weapons development facility nearby. The police release Wayne and Luthor to head to the scene. Wayne, thinking he must have failed, instructs Luthor to shut down Doomsday. Luthor goes to find he cannot and seems to have lost control of the monster/weapon. At this point Bruce returns quickly to the batcave where Alfred and Robin give him the assessment: they cannot defeat Doomsday themselves. Bruce suits up as Batman and grabs another teleporter, resolving to find Superman. He gives Alfred his only other remaining one, and tells him to go with Robin, and turn on the device at the start of dawn (get it, dawn of justice) hoping that it will always open a portal to the same spot and him and Superman can return if they are there at the precise moment he turns it on (Bruce explains he thinks it only opens the door from this world to theirs not the other way around since neither Superman nor the covert team ever returned). He tells Robin to take Alfred in the Batmobile to Amnesty Bay where she (that's right, Robin is a girl) will find a guy at a lighthouse who Batman has been monitoring as another potentially dangerous person. Robin is to get this person to help stave off Doomsday until he returns.

Batman then goes to Themyscira, where he risks his life, fighting whatever threat (maybe parademons teasing us towards Darkseid in Justice League 2? Maybe Warworlders or warriors of Hades or Apollo if you are teasing Wonder Woman stand alone movie threat) has been there endangering Superman.

Meanwhile, Robin takes Alfred in the Batmobile, which is a state of the art, urban military vehicle to recruit Arthur Curry aka Aquaman. Curry is a loner who doesn't appreciate visitors, and is shocked when he finds Robin knows that he is a metahuman. He doesn't so much agree to go as Doomsday, systematically removing threats (including Curry and Robin), comes to Amnesty Bay. To protect his town Aquaman dons his armor and grabs his Trident and he and Robin begin fighting Doomsday.

Batman finally comes upon Wonder Woman, Steve Trevor, and Superman. He informs them that he needs to get Superman back to earth where he can regain his strength from the sun. Trevor, seeing his opportunity also desires to go home. Wonder Woman, who has been protecting them both insists on going with to make sure Batman is not leading them to a trap. The parademons (or whatever) nearly impede their ability to make it back to the portal at dawn, but Batman has cool powerjets in his batsuit and Wonder Woman flies, and between them they each carry one of Trevor and Superman to make it just before the portal closes.

Meanwhile Aquaman and Robin are proving unable to defeat Doomsday themselves, although they are holding their own against him. But it is at the arrival of Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman where the tables turn. First Batman and Wonder Woman take to Doomsday right away, Superman meanwhile is slowly beginning to recover. As he witnesses what is happening, and begins to strengthen, Trevor begins to urge him on. Superman however hesitates, even asking why he should, that's when Batman - in the clutches of Doomsday - chokes out something along the lines of "because only you can" and Superman, seeing his responsibility and necessity, finally enters the fight, pummeling Doomsday until he drops Batman, whose armor is now cracked and dented. From his knees, hurting, Batman gives instructions to Wonder Woman to restrain Doomsday with her lasso and for a weary Aquaman to throw Superman his trident which Superman then uses with Super strength in conjunction with his heat vision to deal the deathblow.

As the story comes towards resolve, we learn several things: Wonder Woman's way home is destroyed as the teleporter was damaged in the fight. Batman promises to work towards building a new one. This teleporter technology is much to the interest of S.T.A.R. Labs scientist Silas Stone (father of Victor Stone, who will become Cyborg), who takes possession of Doomsday's body. All four are welcomed as heroes. Clark gets to publish his Batman story. Lois is shown defending Superman on tv, with approval ratings showing their support given his defense of the nation. Bruce Wayne jests at the fine he has to pay for whooping Luthor, who is visited by Superman in a "I know you were behind this" scene where Luthor calmly replies "prove it". We also see that Curry is getting unwanted attention as Aquaman (maybe even first named Aquaman and teased for it).

The final scenes involve Batman and Superman meeting up in front of S.T.A.R. Labs, where they have a somewhat tense/strained but friendly acknowledgment of each other. Ending with a bit of a comical reveal that they each know the other's secret identity. Superman informing Batman that his x-ray vision can see Bruce under the cowl, Bruce jokingly saying it doesn't take the world's greatest detective to figure out that Clark is Superman with glasses. Finally they go into the Lab together where Silas informs them he figured out what happened with Doomsday: something took control of its system and sent it on a rampage against every major defense system on the East coast. This virus was sending an odd signal with such instructions. As we hear the faint and familiar sound that turned Doomsday back on we then transition by following this same signal as it ends up in a phone, where we hear Lex Luthor's voice saying he should have been warned that it was going to take control of Doomsday, but he was over it, so long as their agreement still stood in place: he would be spared. But not any of these heroes, especially Superman.

Thus teasing Brainiac for the Justice League movie. The End.

What made me come to this plot: along with it incorporating just about every major rumor I have heard and believe in? There are several aspects to this specific plot that I think make it strong enough to be a workable movie (assuming the gaps are filled in well and story presented clearly, since obviously a lot is happening). Here are several reasons that led me to imagine this story:

  • A lot of the leaks and teases all indicate that Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns graphic novel will be a piece of source material. Images of the Batmobile, the concept of a female Robin, older Batman, mechanized bat-suit as teased in the Comic-Con trailer, and of course simply the concept of the fight between Batman and Superman all indicate this story to be utilized. Now the one issue is that of course is a Batman story where Superman fights him, this is a Superman story where Batman fights him, and so I thought it would make some sense to reverse the situation a bit. That is, in the graphic novel Superman is sent by the government because Batman will not heed warnings to stop and the public is calling for him to be stopped. Here it is a reverse situation (although the government did not specifically ask Batman, although Luthor anticipates his involvement), here Superman is an enemy of the public, and the government has sought to stop him with Doomsday, and Superman failed to heed Batman's warnings to not think he can simply be a hero anywhere. Like in Miller's epic graphic novel, Superman is also weakened before their encounter to help level the playing field. In this case, instead of a nuclear explosion doing it, I introduced Doomsday earlier. 
  • Snyder has said the movie is Batman v. Superman and not Batman vs. Superman for a reason, and of course you can't make Batman simply a villain. In this story, Batman is not necessarily wrong or bad. He is acting out of the good and yet he clearly has a beef with Superman. And as I noted, this distrust, territorialism towards Gotham, and tension that makes up his beef has precedence in the comics in the Man of Steel Vol 1. Although there it is relieved amicably. The deception on the part of Luthor is also helpful, while some may not like Batman having one puled over his eyes a bit, he still shows exceptional detective skills here (more than probably any other Batman movie to date), still ultimately discovers the deception, and it makes Luthor the ultimate instigator, propagating both Batman's and Superman's fatal flaw in the story that leads to their confrontation. More in line with the title, this film is not so much about their being enemies or even fighting, it is about their conflicting views and really divergent forms of being a hero.
  • A lot of thought went into character introduction, which obviously will be a huge factor for this film, since it seems poised to introduce Batman, Robin, Alfred, Luthor, Morgan Edge, Aquaman, Doomsday and Wonder Woman (all names come upon by rumors and leaks, Steve Trevor the only one I really added that wasn't already confirmed or strongly rumored, and even his has been rumored to be in this movie in the past). Obviously Batman and his cast as well as the villains all will have the main screen time. Then I followed the rumors that suggested Wonder Woman would have a role and Aquaman a lesser one introduced. But while they are introduced and not central here, I felt they still needed to be important. While some criticize the DC method over the Marvel Avenger method, saying it will rush the characters, what I see is actually quite wise: Wonder Woman and Aquaman are less popular heroes. Give them a good introduction in this highly popular film and you set their stand-alone films up for a stronger box office. But that means they need to come off strong. Aquaman especially I think so because no one takes him seriously. But if you have him and Robin hold off Doomsday, even if in the end he can't do much more being weakened in that bout, you give him real credibility (especially since you showed Superman unable to take him on alone earlier in the film), yet you let his contribution towards the end only be giving Superman his trident so Superman still shines (since it is his movie after all). Wonder Woman likewise gets to defend a helpless Superman. More than that, this film introduces her to earth, but has plenty of room for a stand alone film based on Trevor's group coming to Themyscira and allowing Wonder Woman to be fully introduced in a way that does not make one ask how come she wasn't involved in the battle of Metropolis in Man of Steel since her origin movie would not take place on earth. This film likewise gives a lot of time to Batman and his role against and for Superman is essential while still leaving plenty of space for his own stand alone film too.
  • The movie is still by and large Superman-centric. I think the biggest challenge to introducing so many characters and especially a Batman-Superman face-off is to not make it simply Dark Knight Returns or some Batman movie. That's the genius of the Batman story being told in flashbacks from Clark's investigations, the character of Superman has a story arc that is tied to his inability to heed Batman's warning. The outcome alienates him from humanity and Batman, also causing a bit of a dilemma at the end as to whether he should be their hero (albeit I told it in a way that resolves it pretty quickly). Not only does he develop according to that, the world around him arcs as well in him going from being popular in metropolis, to popular nowhere, to widely embraced because more than metropolis could see him as their hero. It answers the main question of the film: does the world (including Batman) need Superman? Is he more helpful or a danger to them? But having a story that centers on Superman every step of the way: the villain is plotting to dethrone Superman from Metropolis, Batman is always reacting and preparing for Superman, Themyscira is introduced by Superman going there, to win they need Superman back, Superman delivers the death blow, it keeps the film as a true sequel for Superman.
  • I think there is great strength in the early introduction of Doomsday. I think most assume Doomsday won't appear until the end and then be the cause to unite Batman and Superman. I thought a one-on-one fight where Superman cannot win was appropriate (given Doomsday is the villain who killed Superman in the comics), and by doing that earlier, leading into the Batman fight it also makes the Batman fight bigger (also explaining how it could be an even match), and simply defies that convention the audience is expecting: that a villain all of the sudden appears after they fight. Here the villains of Doomsday and Luthor are already at work. But it does get out of hand after they fight and still does lend to their uniting.
  • I wanted to develop a story that had a little more weight to the union of Batman and Superman. That is, the problem with them fighting then uniting is it almost makes too light of the fact that they fought. Which means either the fight has to be not as serious (which no one wants to see) or else you run the risk of the fight being so great you don't believe they could reconcile afterwards. So I felt there needed to be more to it that really brought them together. Here the journey to Themyscira gives some of that. Superman is able to join with Batman going forward in part because Batman risked his life to bring Superman back (a move which saves Superman's life). Likewise, uniting over a threat has greater weight if they both don't share it, but Batman does alone. Since he is a loner, and fought Superman because he felt he was dangerous and did not want him in Gotham, it was more important for him to need Superman to defeat Doomsday than the other way around. 
  • This begins to tease some dynamics of the Justice League. Batman is a leader, and ingenious in his technology. He develops strategy (both in defeating Superman and then in defeating Doomsday), and imparts wisdom to Superman (when he warns him in the first place about meddling in affairs outside Metropolis), all of these are representative of his character in the Justice League. Likewise Wonder Woman as a protector and Aquaman as reserved are both aspects of the heroes. Even Superman's unwillingness to listen because of his sense of superiority and right are true to the character dynamics in the comics. 
  • Lastly, I think this does a good job to one-up its predecessor. It involves several major fight sequences: Superman-Doomsday, Batman-Superman, Aquaman/Wonder Woman/Batman/Superman-Doomsday along with many minor ones: Batman flashbacks, Superman's first encounter with Batman, Superman saving Lois, Wonder Woman saving Superman, Bruce-Lex brawl, Batman in Themyscira, Robin/Aquaman-Doomsday. On top of all that action is a developing story that moves the characters forward as well as a major reveal in the Luthor scheme and a tease for an even greater villain for Justice League. Furthermore, if you think of it as a sequel: it takes the next step in terms of story. MoS was a first encounter story (between Superman and the world, as well as heroes in general). BvS deals with both the ongoing relationship of people with Superman as well as opening us to a wider world of heroes, and establishes an ongoing need for them.
So that's my story. Some rumors indicate a teaser trailer may be revealed this week with the film Jupiter Ascending which may render this obsolete. But at least I tried. There is BvS for you, at least as it currently stands in my head.

Friday, January 30, 2015

BWAA Sabatage

So I was going to write this like right after the Hall of Fame voting, but life and work happens. But here I am. Time for another one of my many anti-BWAA blogs. This one I'm going to single out Brewer's Beat Writer Tom Haudricourt. Now I should be clear, I read Haudricourt all the time and generally speaking respect his work greatly. There is a school of Brewer's fans who don't like him one bit or say he is not critical/objective of the Brewers or whatever else, I don't really see that to be the case. But this year when Tom posted his Hall of Fame ballot and his reasoning for it, I had to call him out on the failed logic that he bought into his considerations.

To read Haudricourt's full explanation of his ballot, click here.

Let me sum up the only part that matters: he has joined the movement to leave Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens off of the ballot. Now to his credit it was not because he was not willing to vote for them due to suspicions of PED use, but he let those who do essentially talk him into it. And the reasoning for leaving them off became worse.

I planned to go with Bonds and Clemens and consider my task done but I began reading commentaries and having discussions with respected baseball writers who convinced me that would be folly.
Bonds (34.7%) and Clemens (35.4%) have gained no traction toward election in their years on the ballot and therefore are likely never to be elected. Thus, I was convinced those were wasted votes that should go to others I think are worthy of election.
The reasoning was, because they didn't have enough votes, I wasn't going to vote for them. It became literally a popularity contest! Now to give him a little more benefit of the doubt, the ballot is over-crowded and it wasn't like he only voted for 8 players. But I still have serious issue with this line of reasoning. Here's especially why:

Bonds and Clemens actually HAVE gained ground. This year Bonds came in at 36.8% and Clemens at 37.5%, both of which are an increase from the previous year (and a slight increase from 2 years ago).

Now some will note that they are still a long ways away from the necessary votes to receive induction into the Hall. But we should consider that they have many years to make up for that, IF writers will continue to vote for them. This is the other important thing to note about that increase: they increased their votes even though they lost some. Well, they lost at least one, but presumably Tom H is not the only one who has bought into this line of thinking since he said it came from commentaries and discussions it is safe to say this rationale is being spread among the BWAA. And that is precisely what is so bad about it. It is outright sabotage!

Now I know that sounds extreme. But say Haudricourt looks next year and says the same thing: They haven't gained ground (or maybe it'll be "they haven't gained significant ground" since not gaining any ground would be false). Well it's self-fulfilled prophecy! They didn't gain more ground because writers like him stopped voting thinking they won't gain more ground. It's a circular and unfair logic and what's worse is it hides just how untrue it is. When people like Haudricourt stop voting for someone NOT because they don't think that person is Hall-worthy but because they think they aren't gaining ground, that makes it harder for them to do just that which is causing him to no longer vote for them.

How many writers did not vote for Bonds and Clemens not because of PEDs, not because they didn't think their stats deserved it, but because they didn't think their vote would make a difference? It begs the question, had they all voted would Bond's and Clemens have received 40% votes?

The good news was we had four guys elected into the Hall this year, so hopefully as the ballots get unclogged, more writers finally come to their senses. There is no reason the BWAA should be asking for 12-name ballots. At some point the influx should slow enough. We can only hope.

Congrats to Martinez, Biggio, Johnson, and Smoltz by the way on their well-earned inductions! It is insane to think now how for a significant time the Braves had three hall of famers on their pitching staff. I'm not sure if that has ever happened before, but man is that insane. Especially considering they all did this during one of if not the greatest offensive era of Major League Baseball. Is it any surprise they had won a record 14 straight division titles?

Why Milwaukee Should Consider Beachy

Photo from Onlineathens.com
The trade of Yovanni Gallardo made a lot of sense for Milwaukee. They already had an in-house replacement in Nelson, were stretched thin in payroll, and had other needs to address. All the while Gallardo was destined to walk in free agency next season with the only compensation being a draft pick IF he played well enough to merit one (to be clear I do think he would have and will receive one from Texas, I only mean to say that there is risk involved in planning on his free agency to produce compensation for the loss). Therefore to get three prospects, including two who are major league ready or close was a good deal.

It also opened up a spot in the rotation which as of now is slotted for Jimmy Nelson. This is actually another move I am ok with. Gallardo was a solid pitcher. He never became a true ace in the league, but was always top end of the rotation for our team. But you can also guess what you are going to get: 170-210 IP, 3.40-3.90 ERA, strong k-gb/fb ratios (I combine the two together because as Gallardo's strikeout ability has decreased his ability to generate groundballs has increased). With Nelson it is hard to say. The kid has an unimpressive first year in traditional stats (2-9, 4.93 ERA, 7.4k/9), but he did have a much more solid FIP of 3.78. Now overall I really don't think much of the FIP, in fact I think less of it than I do of WAR, especially when I investigated the system of calculating FIP. I particularly don't think much of it when it is used to say someone was better/worse than they actually were. No, ERA is better in determining how they ACTUALLY were. Where FIP has value is in calculating what you might expect to be more consistent stats to determine success level going forward. Thus FIP is helpful in determining if a year was more likely a fluke or not, but not as helpful in my mind in determining the actual performance of the pitcher. After all, the notion that your performance had nothing to do with how your pitching played to your team's strengths/weaknesses on the field is ridiculous. Baseball is a team sport, and thus team stats are absolutely valid determinations of a player's contribution to a team. ERA is thus a more valid stat in my estimation than FIP. But since we are looking forward I'll use it here, since statistics do show the validity of using it to help better expect future performance levels.

With that in mind, that's a good thing. Seeing Nelson projecting with an ERA not far from the range Gallardo was producing for the team. To further this optimism one might look at this series of projections for him. While they range in estimating an ERA between 3.59-4.37, they all agree with FIP that Nelson's ERA seems destined to come down. Nelson's minor league numbers would also indicate he is better as well, possessing a 3.12 ERA over 563.1 MiLB IP and being ranked as the team's #1 pitching prospect last season. And he certainly didn't disappoint in that ranking in AAA last year delivering his best season in the minors: 10-2, 1.46 ERA, 9.2 k/9, 0.919 WHIP. Such dominance at the highest minor league level along with these projections should give us hope, especially when Nelson recently stated he did not use the same approach from AAA in the majors, suggesting if his methodology works possibly even greater numbers than projected.

What should however be of the greatest concern to Brewer fans then is not how well Nelson will do on the mound, but how many innings he can give. His highest total in the minors was 152IP, and only one of those projections anticipated more than 160IP for the year. Where Brewer fans need to be concerned is where those other IP will come from, not only in terms of the effect on the bullpen (and last year's second half should remind us that a warn out bullpen makes a difference) but in terms of depth should someone get injured, a spot start be needed, or the Brewers shut Nelson down late in the season. This is particularly important because the team traded longtime swing-man Marco Estrada and so along with Nelson is another unproven arm in Mike Fiers, who likewise has never pitched a full MLB season. While he projects even better than Nelson in both ERA and IP, he too still is a bit unknown, especially since Fiers is a guy who seems to deliver above his talent level. And you just don't know whether to expect the Mike Fiers of 2012 & 2014 who was one of the best starters on the staff (and went through stretches pitching like one of the best starters in the league!) or the Mike Fiers of 2013 who looked like he belonged in AA. I think the majority of data and the other variables all happening suggest he is closer to the dominant Mike Fiers, but how close over a full season is the question. 

With two relative mysteries in the rotation (which I'm not against, in fact I think they both earned their right to pitch for the 2015 Brewers) depth does become a serious question. If for some reason the Brewers need to go beyond their starting 5 (which almost always happens in baseball, so much that it is special to not have to) let's take a look at who that might be with the roster as it stands:

  1. Wei-Chung Wang: The Rule 5 Pick who stuck with the team last year (mainly because they were able to stow him away in the DL the second half of the year) is now the Brewer's to keep, and the plan appears to be to stretch him out as a starter. Wang was dreadful last season for the Brewers, but had a great spring and hopefully with a little refining will be a solid asset for the team. I don't think he'll be back in the majors this year, but he is the highest rated pitcher in the system by Baseball America and does have MLB experience, so a strong spring and start to the season in the minors may fast-track him to getting another shot, this time as a starter.
  2. Taylor Jungmann: Along with Wang, Jungmann is the only advanced pitcher among the team's top 10 prospects (no other pitcher on the list pitched above High A ball). Jungmann is also, like Wang, on the 40 man roster. Also being a former 1st round pick, taken out of college so he could be fast-tracked he may be the most likely one from AAA to get the first call-up should Milwaukee need a pitcher.
  3. Johnny Hellweg: If Jungmann does not get first crack of a rotation spot, Hellweg would likely be the other to get the call-up. Just a year ago he was the team's #4 prospect. He has a big arm and strong minor league numbers. But his first crack at the majors was a disaster, followed up by a year lost to injury, and he may soon become a power reliever rather than a starter as some have speculated he was destined for. 
  4. Will Smith: When first acquired from Kansas City Melvin indicated they wanted to try him as a starter and perhaps if an opening appeared that may yet happen. But after his dominant first half last year and strong overall career numbers as a relief pitcher I think he has settled into the pen and likely won't be transitioning back to the rotation.
  5. Tyler Thornburg: his situation is kinda similar to Smith in that he was so good out of the pen last year until he got hurt the team may not want to move him back to the rotation (especially with the concern for his arm injury happening again and requiring Tommy John surgery which he just narrowly avoided), and like Hellweg many have said Thornburg seems like a guy destined for the pen anyways. All those are against him, but he does have going for him that he really shined in his rotation audition in 2013 going 3-1 with a 2.03 ERA and most importantly, all 7 of his starts were quality starts, which shows the ability to go deep into games.
  6. Dontrelle Willis: signed to a MiLB deal with an invite to Spring Training is Willis, seeking to make a comeback bid. Personally I see Willis, if he makes the team more likely in a LOOGY capacity. I could be wrong, but he's been out of baseball for a couple years having to pitch in the independent leagues, he hasn't pitched in the majors since 2011 and hasn't pitched well since 2006, so I don't really have any expectations for him nor should anyone else. The recent addition of Neal Cotts also probably makes his chances of pitching out of the pen unlikely unless someone gets hurt.
So you can see the initial options are either not great or not reliable. All this leads me to the purpose of this blog! Milwaukee needs to add another pitcher and I think Brandon Beachy could fit the bill.

Beachy should not be counted on for a lot of innings. He's too much of an injury concern, it's not even clear to me if he'll be ready by opening day. But the Brewers don't need him to fill a hole in the rotation, they need him to fill one that may arise as the season wears on. What's nice about Beachy is that when healthy he has delivered some good numbers as evidenced by a career 3.23 ERA (121 ERA+), 1.132 WHIP, and 9.2 k/9. Those are difference maker numbers. As it stands, only Thornburg and Hellweg appear to be starters who could be difference makers down the stretch. 

Along with having the numbers that leave you excited, Beachy also has age on his side, being 28 and entering his prime years. He also comes with an additional year of team control by arbitration if he were signed. The upside to this is that Kyle Lohse will be a free agent at season's end as well and may not be returning, thus the team will have an opening in the 2016 rotation anyways that he could fill/compete for, which after a full season's return from his 2nd Tommy J surgery he might be more stretched out and able to handle for a majority of the season. 

Lastly is cost. Beachy only earned 1.4mm last season, and on the free agent market his former teammate Kris Medlen (also returning from 2nd TJ surgery) received a two year deal (with an option) that only guaranteed 8.5mm (2mm in 2015, 5.5mm in 2016, 1mm buyout on a 10mm option), and that was earlier in the offseason and with a better track record. That leaves me to believe Milwaukee could have Beachy for less, perhaps 6.5mm guaranteed (2mm, 4mm, 500k buyout of a 9mm option) if they sought a similar structure, or they could offer a one year deal with incentives (maybe 800k guaranteed with a couple million in incentives based on starts or IP) and have the option of controlling him another season via arbitration (which also gives the option to non-tender him if he isn't able to perform). Either way, Milwaukee would have a real shot at an affordable and controllable arm that delivers high quality when on the mound.

It seems to me this would be a good arrangement for Beachy as well. By signing with a team that has little depth and several starters that are relatively unproven (not to mention Matt Garza who has a long history of injury concerns) he's got a good chance at logging some innings and getting into the rotation. Additionally this team is a fringe contender, which at least offers the attraction of the possibility of making the playoffs which most teams with multiple question marks in the rotation are probably less likely to offer. It also is the National League which is simply a better place to be if you want to regain some value. Although Miller Park is a hitters park, particularly a homerun ballpark which may be somewhat disconcerning, but not with the reputation like the Reds' or Phillies' or Rockies' parks have.

To play for the whole season, the Brewers need to add somebody. With limited payroll space and the need for things to break right to make the playoffs, they should take a risk on a guy like Beachy rather than only making signings like the Willis signing. More likely to find lightning in that bottle if you ask me.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

5 Underestimated Blessings of a Country Church


When I first came to the country, I had a false impression that our country church was at an inherent disadvantage because it was not located "in town". I can't quite pinpoint where this bias came, but it was there before I even arrived. That's not to say I didn't want to pastor the church, or didn't care about it, simply that I underestimated it. Well over time I have noticed several things about a country church that I have come to call blessings. Some of these are not "exclusive" but may be more common or to a greater extent among the country parishes. So I thought I would share 5 blessings I have seen by pastoring a country church.
  1. Truck Stop: This is the one that inspired the whole blog because it truly was unexpected and underestimated. My country church lies along a highway, and when there is nowhere else that is easy or natural to stop, the church lot provides a good place. On multiple occasions I have driven past, during all times of day and night and seen trucks parked in our lot for a time being. Some won't see this as a blessing, particularly if we only think of blessings for ourselves. But this is a blessing for a trucker who needs to stop. It makes you wonder how many lives have actually been saved by country churches allowing a trucker to stop, break, nap or whatever so that they are refreshed when they get on the road. The ditch is right beside the highway, so finding a safe place to stop far enough off the road is a blessing our church provides. Along with trucks, I've encountered people who stopped in front of our church to check car troubles or tires. People have pulled over there to talk on the phone. In isolated areas, with no businesses and mostly privately owned places in the vicinity, the church truly is a sanctuary for weary road travelers. 
  2. Cemetery: Working in the city and then moving out here I can say that having a cemetery right behind/next to the church is a real blessing. It allows more people to attend the burial, eliminates funeral processions on the road and reinforces the bond between the church militant and church triumphant. Pastorally I also see a great blessing in most of the people I bury being in one place, family members of my members being in one place. Cemeteries are a community in themselves, and when it is a part of the parish it is the church community. And you can actually learn some things about a congregation's history or family histories by the graveyard. The open country typically makes it easier for a church to have a cemetery, and to expand it when necessary. The more "dense" the town, the less likely there is a cemetery and the greater the impossibility in expanding them. 
  3. Anonymous Events: country churches can by their seclusion offer some anonymity that other church buildings cannot. There are no immediate neighbors who can see easily who is coming and going. When a series of pastors in our area discussed the possibility of an AA group, the country churches were the first ones I thought of because of the anonymity it offered, especially the more secluded country churches (some are on less busy roads than mine). While the church can be seen for some distance (more on that to come) details like vehicles and people may be more difficult than if the church is surrounded by people. In small town living, anonymity can be key at times because of how much it does not exist "in town". 
  4. Family Trees: I mentioned that the church cemetery has not only members I've buried, but family members. That is because country churches often have a long history of family ties. This reason is in part geographic. While people may come to the area (especially retirees), and some family members move away, or farms are consolidated, ultimately there is still far less transition in many country communities. That's not to say no transition or decline, but rather to say that many within it usually have a long history with the community. This history many families have is often shared with the country church. The in-weaving of the two is a blessing towards investing members in the church, and towards providing evangelistic opportunities (since lets be honest, whether you agree it should be this way or not, so much evangelism today happens "in" the church not "out", and with involvement in that specific parish in mind). Since the church's deep history is tied to the deep family history, the church intersects with members of that family and community regularly.
  5. Pillar of the "Neighborhood": I admittedly don't look at the country and think right away "neighborhood", but that's because I look too small. Even if the next farm is a ways down the road, they are neighbors (in fact, you could argue most rural communities have a better sense of neighborliness than denser communities of people living in close proximity to one another). The church is an important aspect of the country neighborhood. When I think of churches that are "pillars" of the neighborhood, it is easier to think of churches in the ghetto that look to maintain the people's dignity and look out for their needs when they feel like the rest of the greater community has by and large ignored such. But out in the country the same sentiment is felt. The church is important to maintaining unity of the community and looking to the local needs. And like a church on the corner in Harlem that towers high and stands out, so much more does the country church. From miles away members have taken me out to point to the church and marvel at the steeple pointing towards the heavens. People have told me how they wanted family members to live in specific places so they could see their church. Visitors have come from two towns over because they saw the church from one ridge to another. In a community of homes and farms the church has a unique, central, and important place to that neighborhood. Not only that, but its beauty in the country as it stands there is as majestic as the towering Cathedral. The important place the community holds the country church in should not be overlooked, and the distance that such a neighborhood extends is quite impressive.
So there are some blessings I've found by having a church reside in the country. Like I said some of these you may notice from churches in cities or towns, but it shines very well out in the country. These blessings are sometimes to the benefit of the church, sometimes to the benefit of the people who surround it, but all are worth saying thanks to God above. Some who have lived here may think of other blessings, or think I haven't said enough or properly represented the blessings these that are listed. Forgive me, for I am speaking as but an observer and confessing that which has come to me, however limited that perception is to the great thing for which I am writing today.

To wrap this up, I thought I would leave the opening paragraphs of Bo Giertz's great work Christ's Church in which he uses the country parish as the illustration to lead into discussions around the Church universal, words I often think of when I think beautifully of the church building on the ridge in our own community.

She raises her steeple high over the jagged contour of the forest. With her foundation of walls a yard thick, she is massively planted on the ground. But her spire is at the same time elevated high above our everyday world. When the sun has set, a pale reflection of daylight still shines for a long time on the white steeple. When walking in the deep dusk under the trees in the church yard, one can see it shimmering through the dark leaves of the maples, high up there, as a reflection of the heavenly city, the walls of which always are shining with light. When a new day dawns, the golden cross on the spire is the first thing in the area that catches the sunlight. The old church, though firmly planted on the ground, is also closest to heaven.
She stands there as a silent question, surrounded by majestic trees. The spire persistently points toward the sky, and it is as if the white tower lifts an exhorting hand over the area. Maybe those who are sensitive to the silent language of creation would know the silent question of the church as well. Her question is addressed to the farmer who passes by with his noisy wagon, it descends to the visitor who is tending to the family grave in the church yard, with the sound of the church bells it follows the motorist who is speeding by the church.
Why is the church standing there, pointing toward heaven?
Was it just an illusion that once moved these enormous forces that created the greatest edifice in the area? Was it just a mirage they followed, all those generations that for centuries crowded the slope up to the church?
Now the church has a question for you: Is it rather you who pursues nothing but emptiness, instead of having your life's stronghold at God's altar that is raised within these white walls?
We cannot escape this question. After all, she is not alone, the church here on the ridge. Not far away, behind the dark edge of the forest, there is another church steeple, from which one can see yet a couple church spires, and then more and more forming a silent chain that reaches over plains and forests, over nations and continents, and all of them are pointing toward heaven just as persistently as the church here on the ridge.

Sunday, January 4, 2015

My 2015 HoF Ballot

With the BWAA vote for the Hall of Fame coming up, I thought I would throw in my ballot were I to get a vote. Below are the 10 names I would include. For those who read my ballot last year, this year's list should be no surprise.


  1. Barry Bonds
  2. Roger Clemens
  3. Sammy Sosa
  4. Craig Biggio
  5. Mike Piazza
  6. Jeff Kent
  7. Pedro Martinez
  8. Randy Johnson
  9. John Smoltz
  10. Mark McGwire
Not a whole lot has changed since the BWAA foolishly allowed in so few from last year's ballot. Thomas, Glavine, and Maddox were all inducted into the Hall last year, and Raphael Palmiero tragically was removed from the ballot by not garnering enough votes (and Sosa just barely made it, meaning this year might ridiculously be his last on the ballot). So I had four spots cleared and literally no trouble filling them because the ballots are that loaded. Of those who I also thought deserved consideration but did not make the ballot last year McGwire was the obvious choice for this year. He was a prolific power hitter all the way from his rookie season, held the single season home run record, is a part of the 500 club, and revitalized all of baseball along with Sosa. The guy belongs in the Hall.

New to the ballot this year included three no brainers in Martinez, Smoltz, and Johnson. Johnson like Clemens makes a case for a top 3 all time pitcher. Martinez if he were healthier and pitched longer would be in that conversation too. The three were exemplars in strikeouts, wins, and ERA. Traditional stats, but not ones to be overlooked. To consider how good they were in the era of the greatest hitting in baseball is unreal. Johnson was probably the most intimidating pitcher of the generation, throwing hard when pitchers didn't throw that hard. And he seemed to do it forever. Martinez on the other hand was the tiniest pitcher you'd ever see, he had a career of doubters who felt his body-type did not add up to a big leaguer. Shows what they knew. Smoltz gets added especially because he was not only a dominant starter, but spent several years as a dominant reliever. When you can lead the league in wins, several years later lead the league in saves, then several years later lead the league in wins again, that shows just how he was a great pitcher not only throughout his career but even used in different ways. He may be the only pitcher with over 150 wins and saves in his career. 

I thought about dropping Jeff Kent for Edgar Martinez, but I opted to continue to push for Kent this year. Hopefully more than the expected Johnson, Biggio, and Martinez get in so we can give other borderline players a real opportunity. 

An Old Open Letter to the Church

I stumbled upon this letter I wrote to an old church of mine some ten years ago. As I read it I found just how much it still fits for so many churches. While I can tell by some of its contents it is from an earlier me, I opted to leave that intact. To just share as I shared then. So with only a few edits removing a few specific details that was being written for that congregation I share with you an early epistle of my own writing:

To My Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. My dear friends, I write to you today in order to encourage your involvement as well as offer hope and assurance of the mission that we stand for as Christian Soldiers.

My brothers and sisters, I plead to you now more than ever to take some time to consider your calling to the church of God. This time will take prayer, personal meditation, perhaps even discussion with those close to you. But standing blind or ignoring the gifts that God alone has bestowed upon you is unacceptable, as we must all work together to move forward in the mission to spread the Good News. We must examine all of our serviceable options, for we know that there are varieties of service, but the same Lord. There are many forms of work, but all of them, in all men, are the work of the same Lord. (1Corinthians 12:5-6). The church is now turning to you for help, for we are the body (see 1 Corinthians 12:27) that functions to bring the Gospel to the world.

Understand, no one is required to serve. Service is not the price for salvation, for that debt has been paid in full by Christ Jesus. As repentant believers, admittance to the kingdom of heaven is already yours. We need to do nothing but turn to God with an open heart. But if we truly believe and rejoice in that salvation we should desire to bring others to that same light that we saw shining in the darkness.

This service must be observed in many ways: in our outreach opportunities, in our weekly activities and duties, in our governing church body and voters’ assemblies, and most importantly-in Sunday service. But these duties need people to fill the void and lighten the load on those who are stressing to do as much as they possibly can. The more people who volunteer to help the easier the jobs will be as well. Furthermore, these duties must not just coexist, but intertwine. A leg is useless if it is not attached to the body. As that body we must work together and in the ministries and positions we are not able to fill we must support. We must show respect and encouragement and prayers to those who fill those roles and even offer financial support. So I beg you all, for the good of the Church, to look in your hearts and find the gifts you have and the calling to serve.

There will be many trials, but God will see to it. We must trust and obey. For when the storm hits the wall many bricks will lose sight and fall. But it is the bricks that hold strong to the Rock of Salvation that stay standing. It is upon this Rock that the church was built, and it is this Rock that holds it up, and only the will of this Rock has the authority to say “Your job is done, sinner come home.” Until then, hold onto that Rock. So while serving gets rough turn to the Lord in prayer, for God will see to it.

Finally, I send good news! I am doing well and enjoy many spiritual services and opportunities allowing myself too to remain busy serving. Though I miss you all and you remain in my prayers. I will hopefully be returning soon and will have an opportunity to see you. But until then may God hold you in the palm of His hand, and may we all find unity and peace in Christ Jesus our Lord.
To God be the Glory