Acts 8.37 and The Problem of Textual Variance

What I'm about to raise is a confusing and not entirely settled matter for me, and one that has come up among pastors this week due to the presence of the Acts 8 reading in the Revised Common Lectionary. But I thought it was worth thinking aloud about it and how I currently approach the issue.

While not the only example of it, Acts 8.37 is probably the most notable case of textual omission by modern translations. Most notable because its presence or omission could dramatically alter the meaning of the text itself.

36 As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” 37, And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.

Most modern translations (including these widely used New Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, New American Bible, New International Version, and the Common English Bible) omit verse 37 from the reading, leaving only a footnote on the bottom of the page to indicate their reasoning and what the verse states.

You can see why this verse would be the one to spark the discussion of textual omission as the absence or inclusion of this one verse dramatically changes the meaning of the ones around it. Without the verse, Philip's actions indicate that there is water and a willing person, there is nothing stopping them from baptizing. With it, he seems to have one stipulation: that one declare their faith.

One of the most contentious issues in Christianity today is the issue of "Who may be baptized?" This especially plays out on the discussion of whether or not the Bible insists on Believer's Baptism (that one must confess belief before being baptized) or whether it insists upon what I'll dub as Sacramental Baptism (baptism as a means of grace to be shared even with infants). Is baptism more about our faith or God's grace? Obviously they are connected, but which one baptism is more about ultimately leads to a theology that embraces believer's baptism or infant baptism.

The textual omission impacts whether or not this story from Acts would seem more to favor one or the other (I don't think it in any way settles the matter for either side).

Now without giving you the full scholarly breakdown of why this is omitted, let me summarize it in a more simple manner: our earliest and "most reliable" manuscripts omit this verse. Therefore groups like the United Bible Society (who produce updated editions of the Greek New Testament, assembled by critical examination of manuscripts and with critical footnotes below) have deemed the verse as so unreliable towards the original text that they have since omitted the verse, being in highest level of agreement it was a later addition to the text. And as shown above most Bible Translations have followed their lead.

Before anyone cries in outrage, we should note this happens all over the Greek text, just rarely with an entire verse, so that one does not notice. But often a word or phrase that appears in some manuscripts are too absent in other ones (especially older ones) and the UBS omits them from the main text, relegating them to the footnotes. A good way to spot this will be by comparing the King James Version, that used a specific Greek text known as the Textus Receptus. Since the KJV worked from that text, it will include some things that other Bible's have omitted because the critical scholarship has deemed it as unreliable based on earlier manuscripts and fragments. One example that comes to mind is Matthew 5.13 the final verse of the Matthean Lord's Prayer. Most Bibles will show Jesus ending the prayer with "Deliver us from the Evil One." But they probably include a footnote which will say that some manuscripts continue on "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." And some like the KJV include it in the text itself.

Such textual omissions show why there are churches that profess no Bible but the King James Bible. They see the other translations as unfaithful because of the critical omissions throughout, which most readers pay little attention too. It is only in the few instances like this where an entire verse has been left out where some will notice when the text jumps from verse 36 to verse 38. That is the way I first learned, when in my college Greek class I was translating John 5 verse by verse. After finishing verse 3 I wrote the "4" on the left margin of my page and went to translate it, only to learn I could not find the verse!

Now that the issue of textual variance and omission has been laid out, the question is what do we do with it? Many Christian denominations have a high view of scripture and some doctrinal understanding of inspiration or divine authority in its regards, but few take any clear stand in regards to the variances.

It seems to me there are two questions to be dealt with: authorship and variant authority.
Authorship: is it only God's word if it was written by the original author?
Variant Authority: What is the best approach with the variant texts to decide which variant shall be taken as authoritative?

The second question is linked to the first to some degree but not exclusively. That is, if only the original author is authoritative then you have to solve each variant because one simply cannot be, and without deciding which you believe to be original, you cannot decide which to be authoritative. That is a similar manner to the USB's efforts: get as close to the original (or "autograph") copy. On one hand that makes sense. After all, authorship was one of the grounds by which the church determined if a book ought be canonized.

On the other hand that is also problematic. If ONLY the autograph was God's word and variances are not, then we actually have no means of trusting ANY of the text since we have no way of ever knowing what the autograph copy contained. We could discover the autograph and not even know it! And a variance could have been introduced so early, every manuscript we have has been contaminated. Thus if it must be original, even if we have overwhelming evidence something is original it may simply be because we have lost the evidence that it is not original. We also must indicate why only the original includes God's message, as the canon itself indicates the God works a single story and message through multiple authors. It also causes serious issue for books where the vast majority of textual critics believe the book to be the composite of multiple authors (such as debates around whether Isaiah was the work of 1, 2, 3, or more prophets) or books where the claimed authorship is called into question (such as whether or not letters such as Ephesians and 2 Timothy were written by Paul) or books where we really have little or no internal evidence as to the author being who tradition has claimed the book to be authored by (like Matthew). The text needing to be written by the person to be inspired by God does raise issues.

Of course that is not to say the opposite isn't true as well. If we assume that we don't need it to be the original author, we must ask ourselves if it is appropriate to edit scripture today? Was Jefferson's edits of cutting out the supernatural to make a more deistic Bible an authoritative variance? My guess is most Christians will say no. But we must then somehow explain at what point is variance divinely inspired and when is it heresy? As I already mentioned the canonization process did not look to redactors but the original authors when considering texts. We also must wonder what the authority of the text was prior to the redaction. If the variance was divinely inspired, was that original section not (this is particularly important in regards to omission of the section, such as if the redactors cut 8.37 like I suspect might have happened).

These questions of whether the authority is tied to the author, or if the redactors share it is important either way in leading us to the question of how do we best handle these variances when speaking of the authority of scripture (particularly as God-breathed)?

It seems to me there are several ways one could go about doing this including (although I'm sure not limited to):

1. Choose your own variance. You could decide that the overall preservation of the texts ultimately mean the variants are of little concern and each person is free to embrace, teach from, and be shaped by whatever variant they choose. Thus making no issue at all from the variances. Let God use whichever form he so chooses to speak to you.

2. Pick the Best Manuscript. For each book of the Bible, choose a manuscript that you see as most reliable and therefore authoritative. Work from that and leave all variances from it in the footnotes. Just as most churches today settle on a translation that they think most appropriate for worship, we should do the same with our source material. Pick what is best, reliable and appropriate.

3. Get Critical for Jesus. Examine every variance with the best critical scholarship available to determine which is most likely the original. Every one is handled then on a case-by-case basis. We may never know for sure, but we have a responsibility to make the best possible guess.

4. Be Welcoming and Include it all. Never cut or relegate to the footnotes, keep as much in the text as possible, only having to omit things where the variance is not whether something is present or absent, but where two different words are present. Better to have things God did not intend in scripture than to leave out his word.

5. Get Jeffersonian and Cut it All. If there is any real or consistent variance of a text, it is unreliable. Remove it what is in dispute to the footnotes since it cannot be taken with the same certainty the other texts provide. While you may cut out authentic stuff, the inability to know means we are best to err on the side of leaving it out so the text does not lead one astray.

You can see how complex the issue is. In many ways was often do a combination of 3 and 1. Our translations do 3, and we let our preachers do 1 (they may not say the differences don't matter, but by allowing the preacher to even follow the variant form not taken by the translator we are embracing that view to some extent, especially since in those moments the pastors rarely insist on their form or denounce the translator's but only give a preference or another view), which is an interesting balance as they are rather different approaches. #3 works to be as precise as possible, #1 works to be as useful as possible.

But others are used as well. KJV basically does #2. The HCSB is a cross between #3 & #4. The Amplified Bible does basically #4. I'm not sure of any that follow the route of #5.

My personal feelings are that I like the sound of #2 and #4 but really the practice of #3, although I have become more into a mix of #3 & #4 recently. That is, I appreciate and think we ought to do extensive scholastic research to determine the most appropriate text, but where we are less certain and the debate is far more open I think we should err on the side of inclusion.

I don't think the autograph is the only divinely inspired work. Some redaction may equally be a part of God's speaking as was the continued voice of scripture over the centuries across various authors. I am more inclined to believe this on the grounds of included additional words/phrases/stories than excluding or rewording texts (hence my inclination towards inclusion). God added to his voice through new scriptures over time, he didn't remove its voice. Thus a case can be made for redaction as "added inspiration". But that is different from correction and thus we still have a responsibility towards critical scholarship.

As part of the process and the scriptures I think there are also important principles to come into play in determining if a variance can be seen as an appropriate addition to the divine scriptures:

1. How wide-spread and accepted did the variances seem to be? Do we have external evidence of the church embracing the variance? How many manuscripts did include it? How long did the church accept it without question? The reception of a book was part of what also helped determine if it should be canonized. The same principle should apply towards what variance is "canonized" among us. Did God prosper this variant far and above the alternatives? This is done to a degree, but not in determining the value of the text. When scholars ask these questions it wasn't about whether it was a godly message but rather they ask because wide usage often gives credence to it being closer to the original, but not always. Especially in the cases where many of the oldest manuscripts do not attest to the text, then the wide-spread acceptance no longer holds weight over the ancient texts.

2. How does its message match or challenge the teachings of scripture? This especially becomes for me cause for inclusion of many of the variances. So many footnotes will indicate a variant that reflects the biblical truth. This also explains the reasoning for the variation. The scribe makes an addition to clarify or declare a biblical truth (particularly in a place where they may have felt it unclear). This was also part of the discussion of canonization; that the apostolic teachings were reflected. This is the one place where I think scholarship fails in their decisions around inclusion of texts. They regard practical concerns, but weigh the value of the autograph over the message itself. It is not that this is not taken into account, but it usually is only in determining the redactor's motives so that they may better discern which was more likely the result of redaction and which was more likely the original.

These two principles would go a long way though for us. They would reveal I believe what variance has and will best serve the church and relay God's message for us. Furthermore, they allow us to still ultimately honor the original material (since both were used in regards to the judgment of the texts as a whole) and message. They also keep us from fretting about reliability in the sense of needing to be original and only accept the original text while also giving boundaries and limitations to assure us that we do not have free reign to edit the scriptures as we wish. In some ways, this is the #1 that preachers do to the translator's #3. But instead of it being done on an individual level or from congregation to congregation, sermon to sermon this process should receive the same scholastic devotion as other textual critical work receives when assembling a translation. I cannot and should not say it doesn't come into play (especially by our translators since they will make such calls sometimes that differ from each other for reasons likely other than just textual critical belief in the autograph version). But I'd like to see more of it.

Let me come full circle now back to our Acts text that started this conversation and say a few things about that. While many early and reliable manuscripts omit it, we also know it was in use in the church early from outside sources of church fathers who quote it. I personally think it is original to Acts and not a later addition. My reason is twofold: while the story could still be read and flow fine without it, the story reads much more naturally with its inclusion since it actually answers the question, whereas without such it would only imply an answer by Philip's actions. The second reason is I don't see it as likely that it was added because it still remained very primitive in its form.

Some might argue that the Ethiopian's confession that Jesus was "the Son of God" points to a more developed creedal formulation from the initial "Jesus is Lord" (Rom 10.9, Phil 2.11). But Lukan material is not foreign to the confession of Jesus as God's Son (Luke 1.35, 3.38, 22.70, Acts 9.20). Philip's stipulation of belief leading to performing a baptism is consistent to other encounters in Acts (8.12, 16.30-33). Because of these facts it hardly seems out of place in the text.

Although it is possible this verse could have been added because the absence of an answer on Philip's part seemed out of place. Perhaps some found the lack of verbal confession problematic. But more likely as the second-third-fourth generation church would have become more practiced in infant baptism (which we also have attested of by early church fathers) they would seem less inclined to need to include a verbal confession, perhaps even leading to a redaction of omission. The case could be made either way.

The flow of the story, the early external evidence, and the greater consistency the inclusion of the verse creates with other conversions in Acts (although one could argue that the omitted form in which Philip is implying water and a willing spirit is enough is similar to Peter's words in 10.47-48, but that still included a manifestation of the Spirit), all that along with seeing just as good a reason for redactor omission compared to addition all makes me consider it likely original to the text. Although resting there now does not necessarily settle the matter for me. It doesn't account for example why there appears to be two variant strands of verse 37 among the manuscripts that do include it (my sight reading of the Greek may be a little off, but the two variants come to something like And Philip said to him "If you believe with your whole heart you may" and he replied "I believe in Christ the Son of God" or And he said to him "If you believe with your whole heart you may" and he answered "I believe the Son of God is Jesus Christ"). I could imagine that perhaps a scribe, asked to copy a manuscript that omitted the verse, sought to reinsert it from memory (assuming somehow this scribe was aware of the verse by some other means than the manuscript before him). But then I ask am I simply wanting to think that way because it supports my theory for inclusion? But whether settled or not, I currently see good reason to reinsert the verse into the text even if most of our Bible translators and the UBS disagree (of course their overwhelming expertise pointing the other way may say more about this than I am currently aware). And as I said above, even if it is not original, should that stop us from including it if it has an internal consistency and fits appropriately in the story?

Now before people think I am claiming the Bible insists on believer's baptism to the exclusion of baptism of infants because of which way I have leaned in this argument, I have one last contribution to the discussion of authority and disputes that arise around textual variances. This textual variance is a hot-topic one particularly if one feels infant baptism or believer's baptism hinges on this story. And any variance upon which a teaching hinges will instantly become a greater issue and dilemma for the church's discernment.

My feeling on the matter is this: no single variance can make or break a doctrine. That is, no doctrine should ever hinge on a single verse. Doctrine (teaching) of which we stake our faith and faith practices are informed by the wider voice of scripture. Here the Reformation principle that scripture interprets scripture becomes ever important. I know this text with the omission makes a better case for infant baptism and vice versa for believer's baptism. But my belief in the sacramental practice of infant baptism does not hinge on this story. And the Ethiopian confessing Christ does not change the wider voice that tells us to baptize all nations, that saw baptism in place of circumcision, that included Jesus welcoming infants, that insisted one be born of water and Spirit to enter the kingdom of God, that constantly used baptism in the passive voice, that witnessed whole households baptized at the faith of the parent, that concluded the Pentecost sermon with an invitation to repentance and baptism that explicitly stated "for the promise is for you and your children". My point is, especially in places of variance where perhaps we have more concern to doubt what the text says, we should seek the wider voice of scripture so that no variance would lead us astray. I'll also say that even in churches that have held to infant baptism, we have still long called for the baptism to be for faith, and have looked to faithful people to raise the child in the faith it was baptized into. We have also held that those who can confess the faith for themselves are asked to at baptism. For this story in Acts to expect an adult to confess the faith is not contrary to our practice.

Similar to how we should test the variances with the apostolic teaching as a part of discerning which one we think ought be employed, in the end we must let the wider voice continue to speak no matter what is employed. That is, while this verse (or lack thereof) may lead us down one path or another, no single verse - from John 3.16 to Acts 8.37 - stands as the entire path itself. The point of the principle of scripture alone interprets scripture was to prevent outside interpretation/manipulation from twisting the meaning of a single text. And that lets us face the challenge of the variance. It's no guarantee we will get it right (plenty of churches after all have wrongfully excluded many from the great gift of baptism because they were infants), but it makes sure we don't let the variance become an excuse to discard the message or simply do what we want with the Bible. Every part must stand in service to the rest.

Kinda like each member of the body of Christ...

5 MLB Holy Cows!

It's early in the season, but what is nice about the early season is a lot of early surprises. Some will sustain, others will level out to expectations as the season wears on. But I thought I would take a minute to name a few of the holy cow things about this early MLB season:

1. The Brewers really stink. And as a Brewer fan I hate this, but this team is really struggling all around. Their pitching has been a disaster, especially the rotation which is ranked 27th in the league with a unsightly 5.68 ERA (and think that includes Jimmy Nelson's 8 shut-out inning performance!). While few had high expectations for the rotation (seeing it largely as an entire rotation of mid-rotation quality lacking a real top rotation arm or bottom feeder) that may not be too surprising, especially as they have played 5 of their 8 games against really good offensive teams (Colorado and St. Louis), teams which have given the Brewers a hard time these last few years. But more disturbing is the offense, which is showing no life. The team is last in the league in home-runs with 3, 27th in runs with 23, but surprisingly have been third best in avoiding strikeouts. This is the opposite of what we have come to expect of this offense. Typically Milwaukee has been classified as a strong offense, especially in the power department but one that strikes out too much and walks too little (although they are still in the bottom half of the league in the walks department). But the lack of hitting was what ruined this team's playoff chances late last year and it has continued (although their best hitter to date has been acquired first baseman Adam Lind). Many pegged this team for 4th in the league, I pegged it for 3rd. But they are digging a hole early in a really deep division. The good news is that this struggling is because both offense and pitching are failing, and at least one is bound to level itself, so how bad they will be all year is still to be seen (although I recently read from fangraphs that the Brewers are one of the teams most likely to really disappoint and struggle, with the author even suggesting a 90+ loss season would not be surprising).
2. Nelson Cruz is still hitting home runs. Cruz had a career year last season with Baltimore and it netted him a multi-year 57 million dollar deal. And he is earning his keep, leading the league early with 6 home runs (which if you hadn't noticed was twice the total for the entire Brewers' team!). He's featuring a gaudy OPS of 1.192. Cruz has shown power for years, but between PED scandal and last year being such a career year (and in a hitter friendly AL-East) you had to wonder how much he will bring to the pitcher friendly AL-West. Thus far, he's bringing a lot and making Seattle look good early for their investment (since at this stage in his career, the bat is all they are really investing in from him). 
3. Alex Rodriguez remembers how to hit. There is a lot of time for regression obviously, but A-Rod is back for the first time in over a year and he is putting up solid numbers, sporting a .286/.394/.571 line through his first nine games. Considering the Yankees have to pay him ludicrous amounts of money, they should be happy to see some early contributions. Half of his hits thus far have been for extra bases. Since he will be primarily a DH, they need that kind of offense from his bat. The Yankees have a lot of problems and performance questions, but so far A-Rod is not one of them. If he keeps it up he could be a candidate for comeback player of the year (although my AL candidates based on early returns are Kendrys Morales and Billy Butler). Who votes for that award? Well, A-Rod has burned so many bridges I'm not sure it matters, short of an MVP season (in which he wouldn't win the award since BWAA votes on that) no one is gonna vote him for any other award.
4. The Padres' offensive overhaul seems to be working. For starters, they are hitting some home runs (although still in the bottom half of the league in that regard). But they are 5th in the majors currently for batting average, 7th in OPS, 3rd in doubles, and just missed the top 3rd of the league in runs. While that may not scream elite, it certainly is a serviceable offense, which is a far cry from last year when they were last in doubles, 28th in home runs, last in OPS, last in batting average, and last in runs scored. You gotta love this team's pitching, and if this offense can keep rating in the upper half of the league for hitting they will be in real good shape to compete. They are already ranked 5th in ERA and wins, and 3rd in strikeouts. Their biggest concern currently should be limiting walks as they are among the worst in the league in doing that.
5. Shane Greene is off to a surprising start. Greene and Simon came into Detroit replacing Porcello and Scherzer. It didn't seem too favorable of a change. But so far Greene is looking like he could be a great replacement and mainstay for this Detroit team. Through his first two starts, the kid has thrown 16 innings in which he has allowed only one unearned run! He's given up only 7 hits and one walk  (good for a .500 WHIP!) although he's only racked up 8 k's (although a k/BB ratio of 8 is quite impressive). Obviously he will give up some runs this year, but he is certainly showing that he should be able to improve upon his 3.78 ERA last year which was good enough to be just above the league average (ERA+ of 102). And if he can bring his strikeout numbers back up (last year a k/9 of 9.3) he could be a really nice get for the Tigers. Most people seemed to think there wasn't much to Greene, but maybe this is a sign that he's made the right adjustments to be an above average pitcher. 

2015 MLB Predictions

AL East

1. Blue Jays
2. Orioles
3. Red Sox
4. Rays
5. Yankees

The American League East is so tough to figure out. The Red Sox have the most balanced team, especially when one considers prospects who may help and versatile players like Holt and Betts to prevent a single injury leading to a major hole. But I'm not convinced about their pitching. Both the rotation and bullpen need to be better than I expect. I also have my doubts about Hanley in LF. Granted it is a much less athletic position than SS, to sign a guy for big bucks and expect him to transition so dramatically on the field is still a lot of risk. I think Sandoval will do well there though. But there is so much potential in all the teams. The Rays have a great rotation and at least are strong on the corner IF spots. I have been high on Steve Souza for a little over a year now, and I think he will do well. But the rest of the team does not impress me. The Orioles were so good the last two years, but they did little to make up for significant losses. The only reason I have them so high is they had four players who could easily out-perform their 2014 (Weiters, Davis, Hardy, and Jimenez). The Yankees, I like their overall plan and I think it will pay dividends, but they still have several players who seem to be crashing, and while several of them could also rebound (Tex, McCann, Beltran, Sabathia, A Rod, Drew) the only two I really expect to make significant improvement are McCann and Drew. Their rotation could actually be really good but has way too many injury concerns at this point. But they could easily be contenders again this year. Ultimately I went with the Blue Jays, because in a wide open division they clearly improved (so did the Sox, but I felt the Jays had less to improve and did so more dramatically). Their pitching certainly has question marks, especially as to how they will use Sanchez. But their offense is on a tier that I'm not sure anyone in baseball can compete with, and their veteran arms Buerle and Dickey both pitch in a style where age does not seem to be as great a concern as it is with most pitchers. And adding Martin will make a difference in the rotation's performance as well as help that already elite offense. If Bautista, Donaldson, and Encarnacion can stay healthy through the year, I just see the team riding on their backs.

AL Central

1. White Sox
2. Indians
3. Royals
4. Tigers
5. Twins

This may have been the hardest division to figure out. The Royals were in the World Series, the Tigers have been on top for years, the Indians have been sneaky good and the White Sox clearly had the best offseason in the division, perhaps in all of baseball for how well they plugged their holes. The Tigers I brought way down because I think they are a year older and suffered some key losses. Martinez was brought back off a career year only to get injured already. I'm curious if JD Martinez will continue to thrive, he may be a late bloomer since he credits an adjustment to his approach at the plate to his success. And I do like Cespedes as a replacement for Hunter. But this team lost Porcello and Scherzer and their work to replace them doesn't come close. A turnaround by Verlander, though unlikely, would be a huge boost. The Royals likewise are hurt by the loss of Shields and Butler. They could surprise though and be even better, as Volquez & Medlen are quality, affordable pickups with some real upside. Morales could perhaps mirror Butler's performance last year but I'm skeptical. In the end I like the Indians and the Sox, who both have fantastic rotations and offenses to support them. Both teams seem poised to be contenders in my view. In this whole division depth may be the real question, as no team particularly impresses me in that department except the Twins who are probably the only ones not really able to compete for the top of the division this year (barring a fast and successful rise by some of their stud prospects).

AL West

1. Angels
2. Mariners
3. Rangers
4. Athletics
5. Astros

This is another tough division to work out. The Angels were so good last year I will keep them on top even if their offseason did not do much to impress me. Although with Hamilton now facing a suspension they are probably really loving that deal to get Matt Joyce. They would also be well suited to trade with Boston for Allen Craig, who is versatile enough to help this team at first (should Pujols get injured or Cron not take the next step forward) or OF (especially now with the likely suspended Hamilton). I think a lot depends on how some of their young pitchers return from injury. The Mariners started looking like a real threat last year, and they got better in their offense. Nelson Cruz, especially as a DH primarily will be a huge boost for this team. Add in a Smith/Ruggiano platoon, and returning hitters like Seager, Jackson, and Cano and you got quite the team. That isn't even factoring in the fact that Jesus Montero is the talk of spring training in the shape he showed up in, and may finally blossom for this team. Put all that with an elite and deep rotation and you got yourself a contender. The next three though were really tough to figure out. The Rangers previous year can't be used in any way to determine how good they will be because they were that injured. The A's are hard to write off, and had such a weird offseason by adding guys like Zobrist and Butler while dealing J-Shark and Donaldson while also watching some players depart via free agency. In the end I think they will falter because of it, even if I am betting against Billy Beane. The Astros are on the brink but probably another season away from really rising. I thought this was the offseason for them to sign Scherzer when he had such a small market, they had few financial commitments and TWO protected first round picks. But they passed, but I did like the Lowrie pickup. In the end though they need a few more prospects to become quality major leaguers before I predict them atop the division.

Wildcard Teams

1. Mariners
2. Indians

I originally had the Orioles as my second wild card team, but the more I thought about that Indians team, the more I liked them. The Orioles are still good enough to make this, really with two Wild Cards so many teams are able to make it. Honestly, the two wild card system with a one game playoff was one of the best recent changes in baseball. I know many don't like the one game playoff, but I think it raises the stakes on being a division winner over a wild card winner and keeps the addition from making the playoffs that much longer. The only downside is your team could be in the playoffs and never get to play at home. The argument that one game is not enough to truly judge the better team only goes so far, since you could make that case easily in regards to best of 3 or 5 series, perhaps even best of 7 series. That is how the playoffs are, the better team doesn't necessarily win it all because sometimes someone struggles or thrives at the right time. 

ALCS Winner

White Sox

This team should have the rotation, backend bullpen, and offense combination to go deep in the playoffs. I think this will be their year.

AL Cy Young

Chris Sale

King Felix is the safer choice, but Sale is the better one. And his improved team should bear fruits in wins. People can say all they want about wins (and I get it), but when you have dominant stats AND wins it makes a difference.

AL MVP

Mike Trout

Jose Abreu would be my other choice. But really, I think we should get used to Trout taking home the award, especially as WAR becomes so important to so many writers, and Trout being in CF his production and defense is valued higher by WAR than it is from guys like Abreu.

AL ROY

Runny Castillo

I'm going with the young Cuban talent. He showed well last year, and should really get plenty of PT to rack up the stats he needs. His recent injury, depending how long the recovery is (and if they have him do an extended spring training or time in the minors) may make me alter my pick to Steven Souza. Tate and Pompey from Toronto are two sleepers of mine.

NL East

1. Nationals
2. Marlins
3. Mets
4. Braves
5. Phillies

This was the easiest division to predict. It's bottom teams made intentional efforts to forfeit 2015 in return for a brighter future years from now. The already elite Nationals added Max Scherzer. The Marlins added talent to accompany their excellent outfield and recovering ace pitcher. I don't expect anyone to really come close to Washington. Even if they played below expectations or suffered a major injury to one or two of their stars they are that loaded of a team. The Mets fit nicely in 3rd place. They are clearly a team on the rise, but did not do enough this offseason to convince me they will be able to take on the top two in the division. But they could be real good real soon, with a break or two, maybe even sooner than I'm predicting.

NL Central

1. Cardinals
2. Cubs
3. Brewers
4. Pirates
5. Reds

This was another really tough division. The Cardinals I am not betting against. Not after that franchise proving their place year after year and nothing really happening in this offseason to change that. Each year they are good enough to be considered a World Series contender. It was after them that was hard to figure out. I'm banking on a big year from the Cubs. They aggressively added some talent to a team that quietly had a strong second half last year already. And they have more talent on the way. Soler and Bryant will likely be a dangerous young duo to pair with their already established duo of Castro and Rizzo. Add to that a powerful (albeit strikeout prone) Baez and a talented Russell. They have depth for trades or injuries. And then look at their rotation which is surprisingly deep with Arrietta (a pickup I loved for them from the start), Lester, Hammel (a move I'm not as big on given his overall career does not support his first half performance last year), Hendricks, Wood, and Jackson and Wada (who had a quietly good debut last year). That means even if some of their question marks like Hendricks or Hammel under-perform they have good in-house replacements already! The Brewers, I'm betting on a middle of the road performance like last year ended up being. They played over their heads early on and way worse than they really were in August-September. An 80-84 win season seems right. But they are one of those teams who could really surprise and do better (the talent is there) or collapse enough early to go into a fire-sale given the number of players in contract years. My biggest concern for Milwaukee is the lack of an ace. They have a solid and balanced rotation, but no ace. They also made a mistake I think by not getting a platoon partner for at least one of Gennett and Lind. The Pirates too could be better, but I'm anticipating that AJ Burnett's second tour will be less successful and the loss of Russell Martin will hurt way more than many think. But I wouldn't be surprised necessarily if they and the Cubs or Brewers switched spots. Even the Reds who I got picked for last place could be contenders. Even after trading Latos and Simon they have a strong rotation and IF their stars all remained healthy this would be a dangerous team. Basically after St. Louis this division is wide open.

NL West

1. Dodgers
2. Padres
3. Giants
4. Diamondbacks
5. Rockies

I will be a sucker for this Padres team, although I have my doubts. They aren't better than the Dodgers, who along with the talent have some minor league depth as well. I also think Meyers and Upton may struggle offensively in PETCO. Not to subpar levels, but they won't produce like some expect them to in that park. But any offense may be all the Padres need with their rotation, which they strengthened by adding Shields. As much as I am a fan of McGehee, the Giants did not answer to the loss of Sandoval at all, and now Pence is injured too. Although I do like the addition of Aoki. That was one of the best contracts of the offseason. A strong year from Cain could put them in second, but I'm not planning on it. The bottom part was hard to rank, because while I clearly saw these two as bottom dwellers I'm not sure who I prefer where. I put the Diamondbacks second only because I think their star (Goldschmidt) is a more reliable one than the Rockies have and I liked the Tomas signing, which ended up being way cheaper than I expected it to be to sign him. But overall I didn't like either offseason. 

Wildcard Teams

1. Marlins
2. Padres

These two teams worked for it and I expect their offseasons to pay off. I may be unwise betting against the NL Central that has been consistently providing wildcard teams, but I'm not betting against the Marlins's outfield or the Padres's pitching. But like I already said, two Wild Cards leaves things wide open, and with exception to the Diamonbacks, Rockies, Phillies, and Braves I would not be surprised to see any of the 11 other teams in the playoffs. But the wild card is where I expect the action to be as picking division winners in the National League was a lot easier.

NLCS Winner

Nationals
Easy choice. This team was already in my view the best on paper at the start of the offseason and they got better. They have a championship rotation and star offense. I have a hard time seeing where this team has any cracks (although they will miss Clippard in their pen).

NL Cy Young

Clayton Kershaw
Until Fernandez in MIA proves he's healthy again, I got no one I would think of picking over Kershaw, who is right now what Verlander was a few years ago and then some.

NL MVP

Troy Tulowitzki
I'm going to be risky here. Tulo has shown over and over he has all the skills, but just can't stay healthy. This year even he seemed destined for the MVP until the pain came. He is so good no one even questions the Coors Field factor in his talent. Since all it takes is health, he's young enough still I'll bet on that. 

NL ROY

Jorge Soler

There were definitely some options here. Bryant may even be the wiser choice, but I bet he won't start the season with the club so Chicago can control him another year, which gives Soler the advantage. Tomas could also take this. But Soler has already shown in a small sample size he can hit major league pitching. So I'm putting my stock in him.

WORLD SERIES WINNER
Nationals
This team went from elite to even more elite. Chicago, even though all the right pieces are there, still aren't enough for me to bet against what the Nats have to bring.

Now it's time for the season to start, when predictions go out the window and what you are on paper doesn't even matter!

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.

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?