2026 Academy Award Nominees for Best Picture

 This year will be quick and dirty without any still from the films themselves because I have a busy day ahead. Again, I was glad I did this exercise as I enjoyed all of the nominees greatly. I don't think F1 is as deserving as Mission Impossible: the Final Reckoning but I still could appreciate things about it. Note that several of these toy with changing ratings by a half-star or so, but I gave most 4.5 stars on Letterboxd, and dates seen in parentheses. Without further ado, in the order they were seen:

Sinners

Probably deserves 4.5 but felt it might be slightly overrating, and feel like I may have missed something. Regardless, it's worth watching. It will probably get nominated for Best Picture. It is no Get Out, but it is the best I've seen from Ryan Coogler thus far (have yet to see the Creed or Creed II so take that as you will). 

Jordan may nab an Oscar nom for it, because his performance is fantastic. Probably the best I have seen him give (note again, have not yet seen Creed or Creed II). The only problem is if you nominate him, you have to nominate Miles Caton, and he seems to have the bigger part. Caton's performance is every bit as good as Jordan's, but Jordan has to play 2 roles, and he does it about well as Nicolas Cage or Rachel Weisz or Jeremy Irons did for that matter. 

There's a social commentary in here somewhere, but not as obvious as in Get Out. It's closer to Us in that category. It's a horror film, but that element is not obvious (apart from the opening scene) until at least halfway through the runtime. Beyond that it's a period piece and arguably more affecting before the supernatural element takes over.

Of course there has to be some connection to our present moment, and if anything it is DEI. While the film is deeply indebted to the blues and black culture, it questions the nature of inclusiveness through a prism that I don't think has been done before. It is more about the concept of "community" than black culture, and there's also a mystical element to it that's rather intriguing and which provides the biggest laugh (at least for me). The epilogue with one of the great living legends of the blues is also fantastic. Think I'm boosting it up to 4.5 stars just because of him. (7/13/25)

One Battle After Another

It's too early to truly assess where One Battle After Another ranks. I didn't like it as much as Magnolia, but that is my favorite movie and PTA has been there, done that. It wasn't up to the level of The Master or Phantom Thread or There Will Be Blood, but those would all get 5 star rankings. It's at least equivalent to Punch Drunk Love, which I vaguely feel like I underrate. It's better than Inherent Vice but that is where I am going to pause.

Maybe it's not better than Inherent Vice. I've only seen that twice. Stylistically, they are the two most similar, which makes sense as they are both adapted (or semi-adapted) from Thomas Pynchon novels. The difference is that one takes place in the 60s or 70s, and this one takes place in present day. IV is about a detective and this is about a freedom fighter, but both Phoenix's and DiCaprio's performances owe a certain debt to Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski. Both also demand multiple viewings. All of PTA's films are more rewarding after multiple viewings, but it feels like neither of these can be fully understood after just one. 

It's probably on the level of Boogie Nights, though obviously they are totally different. Boogie Nights has not aged particularly as well as his other films, but there was no mistaking it as a game-changer upon its release. And yes it's better than Hard 8, which most acknowledge as his weakest, but also acknowledge as a very good film on the whole. I would put it above Licorice Pizza as well, another movie that was much better on second viewing. That is a smaller, more personal film. Its follow-up is the "biggest" film PTA has made, though I still think Magnolia is bigger, as a deep meditation on the human condition. 

I'll try not to spoil anything, as it wasn't spoiled for me. The trailers only give a vague idea of the plot of the movie. I'll just say I was surprised because it has a fairly conventional one. I mean, it is not conventional, but the nature of the "chase" certainly feels straight out of the Action genre and that is why it feels bigger budget movie. 

As usual the performances are stellar. DiCaprio and Chase Infiniti should both receive Oscar nominations. Sean Penn and Benicio arguably deserve them as well. PTA obviously deserves nominations for screenplay and directing and I do think this will get a Best Picture nomination. 

It would be weird to say the opening scene at the convent was my favorite in the movie (that would probably be the scene where DiCaprio seems to be channeling the trailer freak-out from Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), but it was the moment that felt like an easter egg, if only because of the actress, so I was very touched by it. 

The opening sequence feels like a trope borrowed from Christopher Nolan, but there is no question that PTA puts a personal stamp on it, and that it works. 

Comments on the politics of the film are inevitable. It is uncompromising. Conservatives will point out that it perfectly captures how the liberal ideology is essentially violent. Then again I would hope that any that are actually sitting through a PTA film will understand that is unfairly reductive. The movie is about standing up for what's right, on topics that are fairly difficult to disagree on, unless one has a regressive and uneducated worldview. I don't think French 75 are exactly the same as Antifa but it feels like many will equivocate the two. So plenty of people will dislike this just because they demonize Antifa and obfuscate what it fights against. Whatever the case, it feels prescient, while still not pandering totally to the moment.

I'll have to see it again. I know it's a masterpiece but it's too hard to fully appreciate on just one viewing, and on the basis of that one viewing, I can only give it 4.5 stars. For now. (10/24/25)

Weapons

It's not February or March, but Thursday night I watched One Battle After Another and Friday night I watched Weapons and I'm pretty sure both are going to be honored by the Academy with Best Picture nominations. I've got to admit that for a decent stretch of this movie, I thought it was on par or possibly even better than OBAA. However by the end, OBAA is the superior film. Additional viewing would probably enhance both, but I think I might just need to see Weapons once or twice more, whereas I think I need to see OBAA at least three or four more times. There's more richness and depth to the latter. 

I don't want to take away anything from Weapons, because it was quite good. My issue with it is what many may also have, which is that it could have stretched to heights that made it a truly astounding film. Instead it semi-crumples under the weight of its concept and turns into a more basic horror movie. I'm not sure what else it could have done, however. The vibe is kind of like Hereditary in this regard. You had Toni Collette in an iconic performance, which ultimately devolved into a pseudo-Rosemary's Baby reboot. Here you have great performances by Julia Garner and Josh Brolin and pretty much everyone else, and a pretty gripping story, and a relatively original narrative structure that feels like it borrows something from Slacker. This is why I think it will get nominated for Best Picture, and it is solid. 

So it's a personal taste thing, this ambivalence about the shift towards horror films in the 2010s. There are a lot more of them than there used to be, and while they aren't all "slasher" movies like in the 80s-00s by and large, the genre is possibly overrated. Of course, Ari Aster and Robert Eggers are making great films also, and it's fair to say Zach Cregger's has joined their ranks with this. Of course, Jordan Peele is great. 

Get Out did not win Best Picture, though I think you would be forgiven for mistaking that. It's probably the more memorable movie than Shape of Water. Most people thought Us was good, but not quite Get Out level, and while I liked Nope, that's probably his 3rd best, too. I would say Weapons isn't quite as good as Get Out, because it lacks the humor. There's a bit of humor in this, but it couldn't be called a Horror Comedy. It's probably on the level of Us, maybe slightly better. 

It's all about the mood it creates that makes it great. Once it starts revealing the truth of the situation, it feels like a bit of a letdown. My friend asked, "Is this a Halloween movie?" and I said I wasn't sure, but I have to concede, yes, it is a Halloween movie, so I highly recommend watching it in the next 5-6 days. There isn't a Halloween theme to the movie though, and it's good because that might have made it even more obvious (Donnie Darko's Halloween theme was effective because it's hard to call that a Horror movie). 

This isn't Cregger's debut film, but I think it's fair to say it's his breakout film. It's a great achievement, I just would have taken it more in the direction that The Leftovers took. That series arguably jumped the shark, but it also dialed up the intrigue and sustained suspense of a kind over many hours. Maybe Lost did that in a different way earlier, as well. 

Finally, Justin Long is great and while his cameo is decent, he is underused. (10/25/25)

Marty Supreme 

Not long after seeing Marty Supreme (about a month earlier from this writing), I saw a tweet/post on X that said something to the effect that "Letterboxd is homework for failed liberal arts grads" with a follow-up scene of a 39 year old living with his parents who has his review of Marty Supreme posted to the refrigerator. Not only having done flyinghouses.blogspot.com/ for the past 18 years, but this for the past couple years, I felt seen. Regardless, though this writing may be a waste of time, though no one is going to see me as an heir-apparent to the great Ebert, it has felt worthwhile to try to articulate a vision of a successful piece of art that stands the test of time. Marty Supreme is one such piece. 

It has its flaws to be sure. For one it has the anachronistic soundtrack problem that an increasing number of movies today indulge. That being said I am not going to complain about Tears for Fears over the closing credits, which felt rather moving. I wouldn't complain about New Order casually being thrown into a montage sequence except that it made the movie feel set in the 1980s rather than the 1950s. 

At first blush it feels worth mentioning both Good Time and Uncut Gems (and not worth mentioning how this is only one of the two Safdie brothers), because it feels pretty similar to those. There is a frantic, paranoid anxiety to these movies which can rub a person the wrong way. In the end though, most can put up with it. Most recognize that Adam Sandler was robbed of a nomination for Gems, which may be his single best performance. And some recognize Good Time as the moment that Robert Pattinson completed his transition from teen heartthrob to quirky leading man character actor. And many will recognize Marty Supreme as the moment that Timothee Chalamet found his r'aison d'etre. 

Now, his performance in A Complete Unknown last year was stellar, and I thought better than Adrien Brody's in the Brutalist, but he did not win. I think he is all but a lock to win this year (even with Michael B. Jordan's dual roles in the record-breaking Sinners and Leo's brilliant burnt-out activist in OBAA). He has a drive to be the greatest (something perhaps inculcated briefly at the Gallatin School of Individualized Study before he abandoned completing his degree) and here he has achieved that, though I thought he had last year in how beautifully he handled the difficult proposition of becoming Bob Dylan. He is playing a real-life figure here again, but a far less famous one. 

Many will say, this is not really a movie about ping-pong and while it's true, there are perhaps 20 or 30 minutes of "sports action" and those parts are also expertly directed. Chalamet noted that he played an insane number of hours playing ping-pong, and he does appear to be very, very good at it and the performance feels credible. I am sure he will have fun for the rest of his life challenging people to a game knowing that he will win. 

The movie is basically about how he doesn't get enough respect and needs to get money to travel to Japan to play in a tournament that Kevin O'Leary was going to finance but then pulled back from. At least I think that was the case. I saw it a while ago. 

It is mostly about the idea of Never Taking No for an Answer. And it is inspiring in this regard. There are random zany caper sequences that feel like outgrowths of Good Time and Uncut Gems but they are positioned to support the narrative in ways that feel more grandiose, in service of greatest aspiration (not just money alone). 

Many will mention O'Leary as the worst part about the movie and it is true the role could have gone to someone that needed the money a little more and that it gives the movie a weird Shark Tank-vibe but it has to be intentional. There is even a part where O'Leary describes himself as a "vampire," which he often did (does?) on that show. He does challenge himself in a way or two and it is amusing to see him "act," but his casting is just as much for atmosphere. 

Gwyneth Paltrow, playing O'Leary's wife, has a bit of a better time with her role, which feels like something of a "comeback." Unfortunately I came into this movie about 15 minutes late and also took a bathroom break right during whatever denouement with Paltrow happens, so I can't speak to it and will need a second viewing. 

And I look forward to that. I haven't seen A Complete Unknown a second time yet. I would, but I would rather watch Marty Supreme a second time. I don't think it will win Best Picture but if Chalamet does not win Best Actor then it will only be because it is Sinners year. (12/27/25)

Frankenstein

I didn't expect it to be *bad*, but it was better than I thought it was going to be. It's been a long time since I read the original novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, but that also was better than I thought it would be. 

For those that only know Frankenstein as a Halloween character, as I did, the actual original source material is more of a philosophical treatise wrapped in an early sci-fi novel. The movie grapples with some of the themes of the novel, but on a somewhat less sustained basis. 

Ultimately this is not a scary movie, though the "prelude" will make it seem that way. I certainly did not remember any set piece taking place aboard a Danish ship in the Arctic, but I don't trust my memory from over 20 years ago. Briefly perusing the wikipedia entry, I can see that distrust is valid. 

In short, this was written in 1818, and it, along with Sorrows of Young Werther (which I think was 1774), convinced me that I was able to appreciate literature from over 200 years in the past. The language was always difficult, it seemed, but not with these. They made total sense. One was translated from German and probably more digestible for modern audiences, but one is in English originally and unchanged. Both wrote these novels at very young ages and both betrayed a deep precociousness. 

(I am trying to say that a proper adaptation of Sorrows of Young Werther is something the world needs--or maybe not--though I doubt it would inspire any rash of copycat suicides in the late 2020's; ironically or not, I am unclear if this book also inspired mad scientists to raise the dead, but it seems people have been obsessed with the idea for all eternity, and cryogenics are the apotheosis of that urge; these works strike at the heart of what it means to be human, and show that what goes on inside all of us can be felt across the great expanse of time, and we only know because of the artists who recognized the value of demonstrating that.)

As for the movie itself, Guillermo del Toro is at this point, one of the major international directors of our time that adopted American cinema. I first was familiar with him through Ebert's review of Cronos, which seemed like a fascinating movie, ironically or not, similarly focused on the idea of eternal life. I finally watched Cronos about 5 or 6 years ago and it is definitely not as "easy" as del Toro's later work. I probably need to see it again. In any case, he had a couple other things before Pan's Labyrinth hit and catapulted him into a higher category. He worked on some "blockbuster" fare like Blade II and the Hellboy movies and Pacific Rim (which I never saw--only the first Blade, though I've heard II and III are quite good). And I had never even heard of Crimson Peak. But of course everyone knows The Shape of Water.

Again, his career went into a higher category with that and winning Best Picture and Best Director Oscars, and Nightmare Alley had a lot of heat as his follow-up. It didn't do quite as well, but I enjoyed both. I did not see Pinocchio, but the original animated film was a favorite of mine growing up, and I am a bit afraid of being disappointed, though I have heard it is good. 

I really think Frankenstein is the best movie of his that I have seen. I think it probably deserves to get nominated for Best Picture. Jacob Elordi and Oscar Isaac are both nominated for Golden Globes, and both deserve it. Del Toro should also be nominated for Best Director at the Oscars, though it will be a tall task to win this year in either category (I feel like PTA may have it more in the bag, or someone else, a first-timer). Neither Elordi or Isaac seems likely to win, but the recognition for each is deserved. Everyone knows Isaac is a great actor, but Elordi establishes himself in this in a way Saltburn or Euphoria only hinted at. It's a breakthrough performance for him that shows he has more range than people may have realized. This also feels like a breakthrough for Mia Goth, who has mostly worked in the horror genre and gracefully sidesteps into an adjacent one here. This isn't a horror film but there are elements of it. Sci-fi is fair, as would be drama, and comedy. 

The problem with the movie's success is Poor Things, which was heavily feted recently by the Academy, and goes for a more slapstick version of similar ideas here. It is impossible to pretend that Elordi took nothing from Emma Stone's performance in that. And while Isaac certainly goes unhinged in his performance here, which is occasionally hilarious, it does not reach the degree of Mark Ruffalo's comic insanity. Regardless if pressed, I think I have to say I liked this better than Poor Things. That is more of a straight-up comedy and this is more of a serious drama that has moments of comedy. And while certain parts seem scary, there are also some very sweet moments. Ultimately like most great films, it may lead the way towards greater empathy and understanding for other beings in this world--human or not--and in this it is a success. (1/10/26)

Bugonia 

Lanthimos has been prolific and his collaboration with Emma Stone equally so. Kinds of Kindness did not clean up at the Oscars last year like Poor Things had the year before, and Bugonia lands somewhere between the two. Kind of Kindness is extremely bizarre and plays more like a limited series than a movie. Poor Things seems like Lanthimos's "blockbuster" or "popcorn movie" and while Bugonia's present-day focus feels relevant and credible, it is randomly upsetting. There are still a few very funny moments but it is mostly rather dark and somewhat frustrating. 

The performances are all great. Of course you expect as much from Emma Stone and Plemons (who I usually only like about 50% of the time) but I would highlight Aidan Delbis, the autistic actor who plays Plemons's cousin. He probably deserves an Oscar nomination as much as Stone but he is not given quite as much to do (which the movie requires). 

I didn't even clock that Alicia Silverstone played the mom, and as the movie winds down it becomes rather hard to tell if Plemons is really insane or if he is just constructing an elaborate allegory for what Stone and her company have done to his family and hometown and the world in general. 

There is definitely a message here and it is a great satire of corporate America (Stone's directive that all employees are allowed to leave at 5:30 PM--but that it is not mandatory and they should finish their work and meet their quotas--feels sharp) and yet that element feels half-baked, to a degree. It's hard to write a review of this without spoilers but I'd rather not get into those. I would just say the ending indulges itself in something that a fair number of movies recently have also done--which both deepens it, and cheapens it. I have to think the ending is very divisive. Some people will love it, and some people will hate it. I was mildly amused.

I think Stone probably deserves her nomination here because she does fully commit to the role in a way she always does. I'm not sure this deserves the BP nomination (Pavements was better, but the Academy overlooked it entirely) but I didn't consider it a waste of time. It's a Lanthimos movie so what do you expect. It is not standard fare. It does have moments of greatness that feel sublime at times. It deserves recognition but it definitely will not be for everyone. I believe Lanthimos is going to take a break for a year or something, and I'd expect him to continue to be more ambitious in whatever he does next. (1/24/26)

Train Dreams 

I'll have to watch Train Dreams again--at least, the first 15 minutes. I watched with a friend who distracted me with questions, as if I knew what the movie would be about. Like most movies, it's good to go into it knowing as little as possible. 

This is a beautiful movie and it probably deserves more than 4 stars, but I can't say I liked it better than Marty Supreme or One Battle After Another or Sinners. Why not? Well it's a different sort of movie. It's an art movie. The viewer should soak it in. My viewing companion did doze off through the middle portion of it, and I am sure it was very pleasant. 

The cinematography is beautiful. Joel Edgerton gives a great performance. It's very touching and heartwarming and also incredibly sad. It's entertaining, yes, but there is a bigger statement behind that probably will be clearer on a second viewing. It's about the sweep of American history, and I won't say what years it covers, because that's also vaguely portrayed. Finally it ends with a beautiful Nick Cave song over the credits. That song won't win over the K-Pop Demon Hunters song, and such is the tragedy of our times (if one knows of Cave's work over the past decade or so, his voice at the end is especially moving). I'll probably watch K-Pop Demon Hunters anyways just to see what the fuss is about. But I'll also watch this again. It's slow, meditative, and a bit funny at times (a sequence giving a snippet story about a group of incidental co-workers comes to find, as well as William H. Macy's presence, which stops just short of being an Oscar snub). It's vaguely a "Western" movie, and many may skip because of thinking it might be boring, but those that appreciate the genre will likely find much to love in it.

F1

This is the 4th year that I am trying to see all of the Best Picture nominations and F1 is probably the weakest of all I have seen (even if I may have given Emilia Perez a slightly lower rating, Zoe Saldana and Selena Gomez redeemed it slightly). I listened to the Rewatchables podcast episode on it as a way to convince myself that it was better than I thought, and it did that slightly. I admit that technically, it is an achievement.

But let's get the elephant out of the room: I am not a racing fan. I like cars, but I do not find the idea of attending an F1 event or a NASCAR race exciting. I do not watch them on TV. 

But even I have noticed that F1 has become a cultural phenomenon in recent years, probably because of whatever association is responsible for organizing the venture. They shut down the Loop in Chicago for a year or two so they could have a race, and sure the idea of doing a race through a downtown area of a city is amusing, but it's also a money grab and a gimmick to bring in new fans. 

Is there anything wrong with that? No. This is part of what makes capitalism "great." Is this a commercial for F1? Yes. Indisputably. 

I might have even liked Babylon better, though this was more aesthetically pleasing. There are definitely elements to it that I enjoyed, but it is repetitive, and too long. You know that Pitt is going to deploy some kind of trick "accident" that will bring out a safety car. I know nothing of the rules of F1 but the movie will teach you some vague idea of how individual racing times are measured. And I'll admit it is a little bit exciting to think that these races with so many variables often come down to tenths of seconds. 

On a technical level, the movie is stellar. But by the last 30 minutes, I was ready for it to be over. Pitt's scene in Babylon where he understands he is being brought in as a "ringer," echoed there, and echoes here, as he was paid $30MM for this, I believe. He earns it, certainly. The movie was successful, and somehow, like Top Gun: Maverick, got nominated for Best Picture.

All I'm going to say is that the last Mission Impossible movie (if it is the last one) got robbed. I liked Top Gun: Maverick slightly more than this because there was more of a story about the characters, and less about fighter pilot maneuvering. But Mission Impossible: the Final Reckoning was better than that, and better than this. Cruise deserves recognition for shepherding that franchise for 30 years and pulling off incredible personal feats, as a borderline American version of Jackie Chan (though I am sure Chan's stunts were more outrageous and daring).

I was hoping that, like Marty Supreme, the movie would not be as much about the sport. That is not the case. This is a movie about racing. And it may be one of the greatest car racing movies in cinematic history. The Fast and the Furious franchise showed how successful that could be, and this takes it to Oscar-level. It's nice to recognize it, because some of the camerawork is rather ingenious, and the performances are all solid. But Joshua's love interest was apparently completely cut out of the movie, which feels sort of insane given its 2.75 hour runtime. 

The movie goes around the world, which should be exciting, but the international footage is mostly limited to racetracks. A huge percentage of this movie takes place in such arenas.

It is unbelievably cliched. The Rewatchables was more charitable and referred to them as sports movie "tropes," and sure, they are, but they are also totally predictable. Even Pitt's monologue, about everything going quiet and feeling like flying, predictably is depicted near the end, as I knew it would be. There could have been a couple curveballs thrown into it, but it mostly plays it safe. 

As it must, as this is a commercial for F1, and Apple TV+ even has another documentary about F1 racing, showing that the industry has a vested interest in bringing in a broader demographic (as Joshua references briefly in one scene). So maybe I'm a little cynical. I like sports movies just fine. I'm sure any racing fan will want to see this, even as the Rewatchables noted that true F1 fans, predictably, call out the movie as being unrealistic. Even I could tell that something seemed off about it, with these "workarounds" that let the Apex team perform better than they would otherwise due to Pitt's chicanery. 

I would have given it 2.5 stars but I boosted it to 3 because it is an unqualified success on a technical level. Javier Bardem also redeems it to a degree, to say nothing of Pitt's own charisma. Any filmmaker that wants to capture high-intensity action should find much to learn and love in it. For viewers that couldn't care less about racing, it will not make them care--but I am sure younger and less cynical viewers than myself may be just intrigued enough to delve deeper into the mythology and become a fan of the sport. I will be shocked beyond belief if it wins Best Picture, and should that happen, will attribute it to a lobbying effort by the industry. (3/6/26)

Sentimental Value

Ah, the token foreign language film nominated for Best Picture. It has been a standard for nearly 10 years (excepting 2021). Such films were confined to the Best Foreign Language Film until the name of the category changed to Best International Feature in 2019, usually at least one of these films will get nominated for Best Picture as well now. This normally handicaps it in the Best Picture category, and makes it an odds-on favorite in the foreign category. 

This year, it's hard for me to say because I haven't seen The Secret Agent yet and these two films are represented in both categories. For some reason I vaguely feel that Secret Agent has more heat, and that Skarsgard has better odds at winning Best Supporting Actor. 

In any case, Sentimental Value is a fine film with several powerful moments. It ultimately began to drag for me, but also created a meditative atmosphere of calm and contemplation. The plot is very basic. 

When the film opens, we hear Nora's poem (or monologue) written as a child for an assignment on what object they would like to be. She chose her house and the house is the centerpiece of the film, and it's quite beautiful. She writes about how her parents' arguments were remembered as just being "noise" and how the house preferred noise to silence, after her father (Skargard) left. 

The family dynamics are a bit sketchy in this, and I needed to check wikipedia to be sure of what was happening. But their mother has passed away and Skarsgard returns for the home, and to make what may be his final film, centered around it. 

We then see Nora in the throes of stage fright on opening night of a new play. The start needs to be delayed five minutes as she requests a costume alteration and then rushes off at a moment for a quickie tryst with a supporting player. She is finally able to appear and seemingly pulls off a terrific performance. 

We then see her with a child that almost seems like her own but is then revealed to be her nephew--at least it came off that way to me. She leaves her sister's house in frustration, though I thought her brother-in-law was her ex-husband and that she was dropping him off, or something. 

I think the movie is meant to throw you in the middle without much exposition to gradually reveal itself, as it does through Skarsgard's films, and what he wants this next one to be. He meets Nora in a cafe and explains that he wants her to play the lead role--that he wrote it for her. She is touched, but she declines, due in part to her long simmering resentment towards him. Basically she and her sister feel that he abandoned the family (though her sister has edged closer to forgiveness), and when he spouts off about how much they mean to him, they think he is full of BS. Ultimately, he casts Elle Fanning in the role intended for Nora, and she eventually "becomes" her in somewhat disturbing ways. 

It's worth noting that both sisters (Nora played by Renate Reinsve, and Agnes played by Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas) and Fanning are all nominated for acting awards as well. This makes the movie sound like a masterclass in acting, and I suppose it is, as well as being extremely meta. 

Clearly, there are a lot of great things about this film, so why did it feel like it dragged for me? I suppose because the plot was basic as it is, and the main "development" is an unveiling of family history and drama behind production of the film, which is acquired by Netflix, who may be inflicting their vision on Skarsgard. I thought, well, it was stupid of me to pay $6 to rent this on Amazon if it's using Netflix so prominently, because they must own it, but I suppose not. Credit where its due to question the whole notion of Netflix's entre into art films and its algorithmic taste-making business model. 

It has a happy ending is all I will say, even though the film-within-the-film does not. The audience, I think, will be happy for the characters, but at least in my case, may feel like basically very little happened except re-establishing a certain bond with their father. I enjoyed this film but feel the ending leaves out a crucial piece and it's a decision that works fine. 

I haven't seen the director's previous effort, The Worst Person in the World, but I recall hearing a bit about it at the time, and think a few people may consider it superior to this. Reinsve also plays the lead role in that, and I will need to see it soon. (3/11/26)

Hamnet 

The only reason I'm not giving this 4.5 stars is the same reason people were upset that A Beautiful Mind won Best Picture some 24 years ago (though I stood in the minority as saying its win was justified over Moulin Rouge, Lord of the Rings Pt. 1, Gosford Park and In the Bedroom): it's awards bait. Some 28 years ago we had Shakespeare in Love and now we have Hamnet.

Full disclosure: I still haven't seen Shakespeare in Love, and even though I have read a few plays and sonnets, I've still never experienced King Lear, Othello, The Merchant of Venice and a few others. Hamlet, I know, but it's been so long that snippets of it only bring a vague recollection. 

I will try to remain wary of spoilers, but it is probably stupid to pretend people do not know the tragic plot development that drives the narrative. In any case, we can pretend, and the way the reality is teased out is borderline masterful. To be clear, this is an excellent film and again, only dinging it because it was developed with the idea of being an awards contender. It had to be. 

Am I upset that Chloe Zhao is barely a year older than me, and this is her 5th film, and 2nd time nominated as Best Director? Maybe, only because it reminds me once again of the abject failure of my life to make something great, when she has already done it twice (and I haven't seen the first two films, which I think I should, but not in a rush to see The Eternals). Am I upset that she may have been better poised for success? No, this is the way of the world. After all I just boosted Anemone. 

Putting my disappointment in my self to the side, the film itself has a strong Train Dreams-vibe due to its setting. Jessie Buckley, who I will probably pick to win Best Actress along with everyone else, is reputed to be the "daughter of a forest witch," and seems like a proto-hippie. She has a 'meet-cute' with her counterpart, who just oozes with masculine charisma and seduces her effortlessly. Certainly, the movie makes this most famous writer of all time into more of an alpha than I thought he was. But then again I know nothing of his personal life. 

Emily Watson plays his mother, and his father is actually the one to calm her down once he reveals that he will be having a child with Agnes (Buckley). His father is terrible through most of this movie, but in that moment understands he needs to love his son. And then his mother softens, and she takes in Agnes as her own, and their relationship ends up being rather touching. 

There are three childbirth scenes in this (one with an auto-delivery), and there are several moments that are about as gut-wrenching as a PG-13 movie is allowed to get. It is not an easy watch. Both Buckley and Mescal are fantastic. Mescal was snubbed of an Oscar nomination but it is certainly an honorable mention. His work at the end of the film is remarkable. 

Tears did not well up as often for this as they did for Elio, for me, but the tragic ending is both incredibly sad and incredibly beautiful. Like Sentimental Value, the art created by the character becomes very meta, and the film becomes something of an essay on the power of it. Art can be a way of coping with grief or disappointment, and at its best can transcend death. (There is a new Casting category this year, and while OBAA or Sinners may potentially clean up, the casting choices for Hamnet and the actor playing Hamlet are about as inspired as possible, and lend special power to the climax.)

Credit where it is due for this. It's awards bait, but it tackles extremely heavy themes and extremely heavy personalities and comes together as a fully-realized vision. I suppose when we set out to make great art, we imagine it may be recognized one day, and ambition should not count against value. Perhaps I'll read a biography of Shakespeare one day and decide that Hamnet is 75% fantasy but for the time being I am going to take this at its word and believe it gets most things right. Let the half-star ding be a drop down from 5. (3/13/26)

The Secret Agent 

I'm a bit burnt out as it is the day of the Oscars and I'm not really sure what to say about this except that it's great. I picked Sentimental Value to win Best International Feature, but I think this deserves it. I'm trying to win, but if I lose because of this category, I won't mind. This is deserving. 

It has a lot in common with I'm Still Here, the Brazilian film nominated in both categories last year. It's about the same period, roughly, only outlines the political situation along vague lines, and it has a present-day element that also involves finding lost family members (with a variation). 

It is however more thrilling than I'm Still Here. And while lead performances are fantastic in both, Wagner Moura slightly edges out Fernanda Torres. It is a scary movie but also fun at times. It's an ode to the idea of the cinema also, with the role Jaws plays in it. Perhaps the scene that best encapsulates it is when the group of "refugees" are having a dinner gathering and talking about their plans for escape and how they are under "death threats" and someone says, let's not bring the energy down, put the music back on. 

It's emotionally devastating in its own quieter way, with the tension teased out masterfully. I'm wary of revealing anything about the plot and probably only people that are very familiar with Brazilian history will understand it on a deeper level, as with I'm Still Here. But if you put all of that to the side and just look at it as an action/thriller/comedy/drama, it defies genres and should be recognized as a landmark achievement. Make no mistake that I really enjoyed Sentimental Value, but I do consider this the superior effort. (3/14/26)

The Harder I Fight, the More I Love You - Neko Case (2025)

I only saw Neko Case once. Maybe I saw her again a second time, but my memory of the first time was sharper. That was in 2004 at the Bowery Ballroom. 

It's important to note what happened for me in college and what I hope happens to most people, which is that you meet many people and a good number of them turn you onto new music. I think my first exposure to the New Pornographers came in the Fall of 2003, in Paris, a friend in the study abroad program making me a mix that had "The Slow Descent into Alcoholism" on it. At the time, there really wasn't anything that sounded like them. They were a supergroup. (I say "were" because, while they're still good, I think most agree their first 3 albums represent their glory years.) At least to all of us, Neko Case was the star of the group (later we might concede Dan Bejar as attaining MVP-status). Upon returning to New York in 2004, I found they had blown up to a certain degree, and Broken Social Scene had emerged, as a sort of copycat supergroup except from Toronto instead of Vancouver. The Unicorns were also making a name for themselves, and the Arcade Fire debut was not far off in the distance. I wanted to be Canadian and every Canadian I met was super cool. It was probably a good time for that country. Suffice to say, Mass Romantic, Electric Version, and Twin Cinema all stand alongside one another, but Neko's singular highlight probably remains "Letter From an Occupant," off the first album. 

Later I became aware of her solo work. I wasn't aware until now that she had two solo albums prior to her work with NP. Regardless, of course I wanted to see NP live, but they were not on tour, and in any case I don't think Neko toured with them. Apparently she did in 2017, and I'm terribly sad to have missed that. But by that point I had seen them at least a couple times and they were not as powerful a live force as Broken Social Scene (they had played a $5 NYU show while touring You Forgot it in People and I remember that being one of the best of many great $5 shows). 

In 2004, she was in between Blacklisted and Fox Confessor Brings the Flood, about to put out the live album The Tigers Have Spoken. Maybe she was testing out new material in this tour. In any case, her solo work is very different from NP. NP is power pop dialed up to 10 (or at least was back in those days). NC solo is "alt-country" or "folk." I got tickets for a friend and myself just because I wanted to see her, 50% for the music and 50% because I had a crush on her. I wasn't familiar with her solo work, and it was not as easy to listen to it on a whim as these days. I see now she had been voted the "Sexiest Babe in Indie Rock" by Playboy Magazine about a year earlier. She does not write about this in the book but I have to think she did not take it as a very exciting compliment. Regardless I was not exactly the most mature person in the world and fantasized that we might meet and she might see something in me. 

The show was good, and after she said she would be at the merch table. A line quickly formed. I should have waited, and gotten one of her CDs and asked for an autograph, but we were poor college students and most of us got music through sharing burnt CD-Rs. I kept a journal where I would get autographs of famous people when I could and I should have just asked for one there. But instead for some reason, I disregarded the line, and no one seemed to say anything, including her, but before I could say anything I was pulled away by security. She seemed to say no, don't do that, and they probably should have just told me, you know there's a line, you have to wait, but I was unceremoniously removed from the venue, and as I was pulled away I shouted, "I love you!" 

This anecdote does not make her memoir, and it would not make my memoir, either, but it feels appropriate to note for this post; perhaps one day she'll read it, and peruse some other materials on this blog and see something in me, but I digress. 

***

Of course then, I loved this book, and it will go on the Best Books list whenever I get around to updating that post. It's nearly perfect. The only thing I would have liked to see was more material on NP, and what her work in that band means to her. It's not my place to assume, but from the spare references included here, while she does get songwriting credit on her songs, it feels like Carl Newman's band--that's his world, and she's just living in it, randomly every few years. 

I did get Fox Confessor Brings the Flood when it came out in 2006, and it is justly considered her masterpiece--but that also seems to ignore the strength of the 4 albums after, which are remarkably consistent, and arguably even better. This year she put out Neon Grey Midnight Green, about 9 months after this memoir, and so we might say in 2025, Neko Case has reached peak acclaim. The album is just as excellent as all that came before, and the memoir cuts deeper than anything she's done to this point. She's just a beautiful person, through and through, and should be considered a national treasure. 

*** 

For personal reasons, the chapters documenting her time living in Chicago were most interesting to me, and I was curious to find out if it was anywhere near where I am now. It was not far off:

"My dear friend Judge had found a great apartment on Maplewood Avenue in Humboldt Park for us. It was spacious, with high ceilings, old wood floors, and bizarre pink plastic tiles in the bathroom, of which only a couple had cigarette burns. The two of us set to homemaking with a passion. We painted the living room 'Shakespeare Green' and the entry room 'Klondike Blue,' and then kept on trying other colors until we eventually became the reason that Home Depot no longer lets you return paint. There was a back porch, which was lovely to sit on, and Judge arranged tin cans upside down on sticks in the planters so she could record the beautiful, calming percussion sounds of the summer storm rain falling on them." (198-199)

There's not that much material about it, and Case has moved around a lot. If there's a spiritual center of the book it's probably Tacoma, WA, followed by Vancouver. She lived in several isolated locations in remote parts of Washington with her parents. She loses her mother at a very young age. It's devastating but I won't say anything beyond that. 

Her father is not much more helpful, despite being fiercely protective. Case becomes something of a "latch-key kid," which many of her generation often bemoan and also take as a point of pride. It's in this setting that she becomes a dreamer, and starts to recognize that the world outside her family might provide greater love and validation. She falls in love with horses from a young age, at one point "manifesting" two of them, out of nowhere in a random spot in her town where they wouldn't normally be seen. Later she goes to a state fair with a friend and they enter a competition, and again I won't say more but Case does still consider it one of the best days of her life. 

She has a traumatic experience as a teen, and there is a deeper sadness to the troubles she had to endure in her early life. She does know, however, what her purpose should be, and she persisted and grew as an artist and musician, to the point that she has only kept getting better, some 30 years after she started. Many bands flame out and their earliest work remains their strongest but Case has never rested on her laurels, so to speak. After this memoir, I will not be surprised if she has yet another renaissance of sorts, stretching towards greater heights yet. 

***

There's not much else I can say about this except to highlight a couple of other passages, and acknowledge that Case's literary talents arguably eclipse her musical ones--I think she comes about as close to reaching the Patti Smith-level as a musician can. Even though Michelle Zauner may occupy a similar space, I did not know what "psychopomp" meant until reading this, despite it serving as a Japanese Breakfast album title:

"A large swath of Slavic tales feature what's called a psychopomp, an animal or a trickster god who acts as a guide to the protagonist in the story. A sort of left-field Greek chorus. As a teen, I had only the thinnest understanding of what 'psychopomp' meant when I first heard the word, but I knew immediately that I wanted to be one. In the old tales, the psychopomp doles out the clues--cryptic but always correct--that allow the protagonist to solve an important riddle or find the path out of the forest themselves. Like a psychopomp, I wanted to inhabit a den in the forest and possess the answers to transformation and growth that I'd croak out now and then to visitors. That sounded like a dream come true. I still remember the day someone I trusted told me that humans can't be psychopomps. I was crushed. I didn't have a library or internet at the ready, so I just sat in that sad little diaper of truth longer than I should have...thirty-some years? When I finally looked it up, it turned out the working description of 'psychopomp' I'd had was less incorrect than 'incomplete.' If I had understood psychopomps to be animals that help you solve a problem or find a  path, other sources describe them as 'conductors of souls' to the afterlife. Among many other ways of being, as it turns out, psychopomps can perform all sorts of other tasks and roles too, including being singers." (241)

Now having understood that, Psychopomp is sort of a perfect title for that Japanese Breakfast album. 

So too Case deserves to be a New York Times bestseller, but it does not have the same "hook" as Crying in H Mart. This has a lot of similarities to that book, but they have different sub-topics (family recipes; horses as divinities). And while Zauner comes to grips with the love that her mother gave her, and recognizes it as a beautiful thing, Case is not nearly as lucky. Her relationship with her mother is exceedingly strange, certainly about as unusual and confounding as anything I've read before. She still finds a way to make peace with her upbringing--or if not peace, at least acceptance and understanding. Both of her parents have their own personal tragedies that she comes to discover and leave her with a deeper appreciation for their perceived failings. And as with personal trauma, shedding the long-term pain and discomfort associated with horrible memories is often an iterative process:

"There are so many dumb cliches out there about rape. A few seem like they might be meant to help you process it but are actually ways to gloss over the messiness of what happened. They use words like 'resilience' and 'character.' One of the bad ideas is that forgiveness is the ultimate act of courage. It's not. I don't believe forgiveness is something you can actively do with any realness or sincerity. It's not a tangible 'act,' in the same way that justice is not an act. Maybe forgiveness and justice are somehow the same state of being. 

Maybe forgiveness comes later, and maybe it never does. Maybe you are so evolved you can feel it right in the moment of betrayal. I have forgiven people and events before, and it's usually after a long time and self-searching about something completely different. Forgiveness seems to be a sweet, brief rest at the crossroads of other things. It's almost a divine by-product. It's not a tiny golden diploma you bestow upon someone. Forgiveness takes many forms and may be as simple as the moment something no longer has power over you. 

That doesn't mean there aren't good ideas about forgiveness and its beauty, but if something doesn't stir anything but contempt in you, there's a reason. Trust your contempt. Dissect if you can. The reason your contempt is tapping you on the shoulder may be in there, and be valid, or it may not. If you can't find it, it's OK. That doesn't mean you should canonize your rage, either, just make sure you take it seriously. If you learn nothing from something horrible, you are human, and that doesn't make you soulless or cruel. Sometimes bad things are just senseless brutality that finds you. You do not deserve or ask for these things. They are not always teaching you a lesson." (132-133)

Like Rebel Girl, I think this book has the capacity to change lives and make readers into better people and offer a gentle guiding hand through the darkest patches of existence. Like many books in this category, it underscores the importance of following one's dreams. None of these books would exist if the women writing them had given up on that. They might have moved on to live fulfilling and rewarding lives in other arenas, but we would not have the gifts that they bestowed upon the world. Of course, they've all found their ways towards some version of success, and even if we struggle to find our own, the compassion inherent in their work is a reminder that often, all is not as hopeless as it seems. 

Chicago Cubs 2025 Year End Review

After 2 years of finishing 83-79, we finally made it. At 92-70, I think the team performed better than most people were anticipating as Spring Training began. We won our first postseason series since 2017. We failed, but we were up against the team with the best record in the MLB. The main storyline here is that the team developed chemistry and showed just how good they could be. For a moment they had the best record in all of baseball, bumping up against the Dodgers and Tigers and Blue Jays, until the Brewers went on their major heater and left everyone in the dust. We were good, and there are no major problems to solve--it seems that most of the team will be retained in 2026--but there will be differences of opinion about how to handle certain players both under contract and not. Let's clear the elephant out of the room first.

Kyle Tucker: B+

Tucker probably deserves an A-, but I'm dinging him down to a B+ for choking in his last two at-bats in Game 5 of the NLDS. He's been widely discussed, and opinions as to his value have shifted dramatically. In April, Tucker and just about everyone else on the team was on fire. Everyone was clamoring to sign him for however much he wanted. Vladimir Guerrero Jr.'s contract for 14 years and $500 MM set the tone for that. Tucker is just a couple years older than him, and people pegged his number around $400 MM for about 10 years. No one balked at that at all in April, and he was consistently excellent in May and June. Had July, August and September gone been more of the same, he would be getting an A+. He made the All-Star team, but then his second half happened. You could rate his first half an A+ and his second half a C, but of course, it was due to injury. 

Now people look at Cody Bellinger and say we would have been better off keeping him instead. I don't entirely agree but yes, Bellinger did have a better 2025 than 2024. Suffice to say, Tucker did make an impact in the playoffs, and we can't blame the Game 5 loss on him alone. But of all the players that choked, he's unfortunately in the spotlight, and it was unfortunately the biggest choke (the 6th inning one). I hadn't totally given up hope after that 6th inning, but now we know that was the moment the wind went out of their sails, so to speak. 

Suffice to say, also, that nearly everyone now will balk at offering $400 MM for 10 years. Had he hit a 3 run homer, had the Cubs advanced to the NLCS, $400 MM might still be possible. Would he take $300 MM now? Personally that's about what I would offer. He gets injured. He's not quite like Kris Bryant, but he gets injured, and massive super long term contracts for injury-prone players do not seem like good ideas. I think most everyone would get on board with a contract similar to the one offered to Bellinger--3 years, with opt-outs. That seems sort of impossible, though. Tucker will want more. And though he had nice things to say about playing for this team--which was, in fact, a very special team--the comments felt somewhat lukewarm. It seems he would go wherever he got offered the most money. He could have said, "I loved playing here and I hope I'm back here next year," but instead he said, "We'll see what happens." It was clearly a strategic answer, and we have to accept that his heart may not be here. That's the business of this sport, and as Nick Castellanos once said, it's the part that sucks. Hope for the best. It was great to have a player of his caliber on the team, but the Cubs need to become Buyers if they want to keep him. I won't be surprised if he ends up on the Dodgers, who appear to have endless money. I would keep him if we can, but I would not overpay, and it seems one team will inevitably have to do that. They won't need to do that for a while with his neighbor in the outfield and fellow starting All-Star.

Pete Crow-Armstrong: A

PCA would get an A+ if he lifted his batting average and on-base percentage a little bit higher (.247/.287). Regardless, he fully emerged and lived up to all the hype surrounding him--and then some. No one anticipated the power surge. However, he did note he was aiming for 60 stolen bases, and he ended the season with 35. He was on track for 60 or more at the beginning. Then he started hitting a lot of home runs and it seemed his game became more Kyle Schwarber than Luis Arraez. He cooled off, too, and slumped a bit towards the end. Like Tucker, frankly, the second half was a disappointment. He was not quite as good in the playoffs. But I don't think you can hold it against him. He's still just 23. It was his first postseason. He had a couple timely hits. 

His defense is stellar. A Gold Glove is a fait accompli. He's the total 5-tool player, par excellence. 

He'll be the starting center fielder next year, and the year after, and hopefully for many years after that. He's the new face of the franchise. People did not stop talking about him, around the All-Star game. I almost got tired of it, like there wasn't anyone else on the team worth celebrating. He's an emotional player, and while sometimes that leads an overly aggressive approach, on balance I think we all prefer knowing a player really does care, a lot.

He's not the leadoff hitter, though it feels like he should be. Someone else appears to have cemented a spot there, the only person that was arguably a better story than PCA. 

Michael Busch: A+

Busch ended the season with the most home runs on the team. Unlike the two above, his 2nd half was even better. Happ was the leadoff hitter, and Busch basically took over. At first, it did not seem like a good experiment, and he slumped. Briefly. (In August, though his May was not any better.) He ended the season on a total heater and was probably their best player in the playoffs. Now, all four of his postseason homers were solo shots, but I think they also came mostly in the first inning, so no one could be on base. I know he set an all-time major league record doing that in the NLDS.

They need to keep Busch for as long as possible. We knew Busch was pretty special last year, similar to PCA. Now we know that they are both very special. The move to acquire him in 2024 may be the single best move that the front office has made since trading for Jake Arrieta. It was interesting how the Cubs fared at the trade deadline (it seems they didn't do much because neither did the Brewers, though they did actually get one of their best players in Andrew Vaughn), and how Jed Hoyer got a contract extension. I have to think that landing Michael Busch the way he did played a huge role in that (and you will see below, there were numerous other examples). 

There was talk last year of going for Pete Alonso, and there may be talk of that again this year. The biggest most annoying storyline of the year was his inability to his left-handed pitching. How bad was it, really? .272 vs .202. But I feel like most people thought, who cares, even at .202, he's as effective as Justin Turner. Imagine the Cubs with Seiya in RF, Alonso at DH, and playing 1B when lefties start. Or, imagine Busch improving against lefties--not dramatically, but just enough to avoid the platoon conversation. The point is, there are possibilities, and I think the only possibility the Cubs want and the only things we can take as a given is that PCA and Busch are fixtures. I suppose, there are a few more. And maybe that's what great about this team--the holes left to fill feel minimal compared to the last few years. 

Nico Hoerner: A

Nico started off the year injured, or so we thought. He was ready on Opening Day and played 156 games and had the best season of his career. He was the most consistent hitter towards the end of the season, and the best postseason hitter without question (.419!). He hit .297, which is good for 8th best in the MLB in 2025. He's a finalist for a Gold Glove, and he remained the hallmark of consistency he has been over the past four seasons. Like Kyle Hendricks, he has never made the All-Star team, but he's establishing himself as one of the de facto leaders of the club. His postseason performance was so impressive that we all have to acknowledge him as one of the best at his position. He's not going to give you a ton of pop, but he excelled in situational hitting, going .371 with runners in scoring position. This is EXACTLY what the Cubs need more of in 2026. To an extent, every team needs this, and maybe it happens to everyone, but it really feels like we leave runners on base more than most other teams. Only 5 people in the MLB had more hits and their names are Witt, Arraez, Bichette, Judge and Turner. He has to be acknowledged as one of the most underrated players in the league and an ASG SNUB. Some people say we have the best middle infield in baseball, and we now know that his double-play partner is a GG SNUB.

Dansby Swanson: B+

He was a GG SNUB last year, too, but I think on balance, Dansby's 2025 was better than 2024. Mainly this is due to power numbers, hitting 8 more HRs and 11 more RBIs. His batting average has never been anything but average while on the Cubs (.244/.242/.244 in his three years). He didn't walk quite as much and he struck out a bit more. Somehow, his WAR was even higher than last year, good for 3rd best on team behind Nico and PCA, and tied with Busch. (It must be admitted WAR is a flawed metric.) In any case, like Nico, he's consistently solid, and they complement one another perfectly. He gets more flak than others, but he tends to shut people up quickly thereafter. He's the Cubs big contract man, and no one is calling this contract a mistake. Like everyone else above (save perhaps Tucker), he's locked in for 2026 and I'd expect more of the same. I think he's about to become a father, and perhaps a study could be done on whether players improve or not. I'm sure that would be fascinating. 

Ian Happ: B

Happ is another model of consistency, but gets even more flak than Dansby. He's a notoriously streaky hitter that also notoriously ends every season almost equivalent to his previous one. This year, he struck out a bit less, but probably still too much. He's won the GG the past 3 seasons, but it appears he may be snubbed this year. He hit leadoff for a significant part of the season, and he inhabited that role just fine (though he did have a better 2nd half, and a strong end, and he moved out of that spot around that time). His postseason performance left something to be desired, though he did have a game-changing performance in the NLDS. A lot of people seem to want to move on from him, but he's locked in for 2026, and he's the greatest leader on the team. He's been a Cub his whole career, and he should stay a Cub. I don't think many people would be opposed to that, but they might prefer he take a more limited role. We all know Owen Caissie is coming up, and it would behoove the Cubs to keep Happ on for mentorship. This may not have been Happ's greatest year (that would be 2022, his All-Star year), but it is far from the disaster that the naysayers may claim. I don't think it's necessary to move on from him, though I would like to see him focus on his approach at the plate and potentially try to draw more walks. He'll always be streaky, but he's connected to the prior "Championship core" and a key veteran presence whose value should not be underestimated. 

Seiya Suzuki: A

Suzuki famously acknowledged that he would not have wanted to join the Cubs had they retained his services as DH and not RF. After a few gaffes in the outfield the past couple of seasons, the Cubs had had enough, and with Tucker, Seiya was expendable in the field. His Obvious Shirt above indicates awareness of such anxiety. Regardless, he did well as DH. His first half was pretty much exclusively as DH, and he was an ASG SNUB. He was leading the NL in RBIs at the time. In April and May, he was about as productive as Ohtani. 

Some people are saying he was overperforming. And the 2nd half numbers bear that out (.263 with 25 HR and 77 RBI vs. .213 with 7 HR and 26 RBI)--he did, however, draw more walks in the 2nd half, and he ended the season on a high note. This carried over into the postseason. He was one of the few Cubs doing anything offensively, alongside Busch and Hoerner. That said, he still did appear to choke a bit, and his (unfairly) called third strikes continue to be one of the oddest WTF trends in baseball. Notably, after Tucker was injured, he took over in RF, and he did not appear to have as any gaffes (though his fielding % does appear slightly lower than previous years). Anecdotally anyways, he seems like less of a liability than before. 

He was an instrumental part of the 2025 campaign, and stood alongside Busch and PCA as the greatest home run threat on the team. He is locked in for 2026, and his acquisition looks like one of the other more positive moves that Jed Hoyer has made. It might be a bit much to expect another 30+ HR season out of him, and his batting average did actually drop considerably (last year was one of the most underrated hitters in the league), but all signs point to his having adjusted to MLB pitching and I personally think he can replicate this level of performance. If his power numbers drop, I would expect the batting average to go up, but the postseason seemed to show he has become a power hitter.

Carson Kelly: A-

The Cubs were on fire in April, and everyone was performing at the highest level--none more than Carson Kelly, who is currently my favorite player on the team. He is a Chicago guy, and he came home this year, and I think everyone hopes he is here to stay for the long haul. 
 

At the end of April, he was hitting .360 with a 1.347 OPS, 7 HR, and 21 RBI. He hit for the cycle, and won a couple other games for the team. (I was lucky to be there on both 4/18/25 and 7/4/25, 2 of the greatest games ever--I was not so lucky on 7/25/25 or 10/1/25). He came back down to earth after April, but his July was nearly as impressive. He missed his career high in HR, but only by 1, and hit career highs in RBIs and batting average (though .249 is hardly anything to cheer about, it's good enough these days). 

He was the backup catcher to Miguel Amaya, who actually did quite well at the beginning as well. When Amaya went down, Reese McGuire came up, and the Cubs catchers combined to have a very productive season at the position. By the end, Kelly was the everyday catcher, and he should also be credited for his work with the pitching staff. Arguably he deserves an A for that. He was almost an All-Star, and he's never made the team. In any case I think unquestionably this was the best season of his career, and he has emerged as a threat that is also patient at the plate. This is his home and he should stay here. The only question is whether he has supplanted Amaya for 2026. Regardless, both should be back, and the position does not demand any upgrade.

Matt Shaw: B

Matt Shaw's rookie season went about as well as most rookie seasons go: he struggled, got sent down to the Minors, returned with a resurgence, and ended the year on an average note (though actually, it seems that he and Happ and maybe Nico were the only Cubs performing decently in the second half). He was excellent at 3rd base, and I believe he's a finalist for GG. He won't be Rookie of the Year, but at a few moments he looked like he could be. A lot of people were up in arms about 3rd base. And given the likelihood of Tucker returning, perhaps it was a miss in the long run to lose Cam Smith and Paredes. But we are where we are, and though Shaw was probably the least threatening hitter in the lineup, he showed flashes of greatness that bode well in the future. He wasn't quite as good as PCA last year, but all signs point to similar improvement. I don't think there are any major upgrades available at 3rd base, and it seems the best option is to continue to let Shaw develop. There's no question he's a great defender, and the Cubs were one of the strongest teams in the MLB in terms of fielding. If he can improve his consistency at the plate, Shaw is an All-Star caliber player, and if he's the weakest hitter in the lineup, I think we can live with that. He did not fare very well in the postseason, but I have to believe that he will be much stronger in 2026 in every aspect of his game (though it would be difficult to improve defensively). 

 Justin Turner: C-

I'd be rather surprised if Justin Turner returns in 2026 as a 41-year-old. As a 42-year-old, he holds a special place in my heart, and I was very happy when he joined the team. I really wanted Joey Votto on the team last year. Turner performed about as well as late-era Joey Votto, which is not great--BUT he provided invaluable mentorship. He had at least one game-winning hit (I think two), and he was Busch's de facto replacement at 1B when the Cubs faced a lefty. He was not very good in that role, but come on, he was a fantastic presence on this team. He was Fan of the Game one day, and played a mind-boggling prank that we never may truly understand. He did magic tricks for the team. Little kids came to the game with giant red beards and he took photos with them. Every team needs a class clown. He's not the player he once was, but I don't think it's any coincidence that PCA emerged to the extent he did, or that the team came together as a more cohesive unit this year. We went further than we've gone in years, and Turner's intangibles undoubtedly played a bigger part in that than anyone is able to recognize. He's a very fun person to have on the team. I think you need to have a player like him on any championship team. Like Joe Maddon, he reminded everyone that the game is about having fun. It allowed everyone around him to loosen up and play to the best of their abilities (and in many cases, beyond expectations). I was going to give him a D but I boosted him up to a C-. Arguably he deserves a C+, if not higher, but I really have no idea what it was like in their clubhouse. I only know he had a very good Instagram, and that he's an iconic player. He probably will not make the Hall of Fame, but he's a World Champion, and he's certainly in the Hall of Very Good, with an unusual career that proved life can start at 30. I'm sure a lot of people would moan if he were brought back in 2026, but I would not be among them. Counsell proved he's a pretty decent manager this year, but he doesn't have Maddon's swagger. If Turner does retire, I hope he stays on the team as a coach, a la David Ross, because he brought an energy to this team that was singular, and made everyone around him better in ways that we may never fully comprehend.

***

I could write about bench players, but you know, this post gets very long. Obviously, Miguel Amaya merits special attention. He started off well. He had a steady upward trajectory. He was not setting the world on fire, but he showed flashes of greatness, and in April, he and Kelly were basically collaborating and combining and amounting to Cal Raleigh (I'd like to compare their first months of the season). Then, he got injured. But he returned! And then, he immediately got injured, again. It was very sad. It may even have been traumatizing for Amaya. Let's hope that's not the case. He's still just 26. It would be nice to have him and Kelly back one another up again in 2026, and I hope that's the case. As noted above, Reese McGuire admirably filled in for him, and provided some unexpected pop. Willi Castro appeared to be the biggest move at the trade deadline, and I am still not sure why the front office thought it was necessary to get a utility player rather than a starting pitcher, and the experiment did not seem to work--but he was an All-Star in 2024, and I have to believe he will have a much better 2026. I'll reserve thoughts on Gage Workman, Jon Berti, Vidal Brujan, Nicky Lopez and Carlos Santana. But Owen Caissie, Moises Ballesteros and Kevin Alcantara all showed great promise. I was really sad to lose Alexander Canario, but the Cubs prospect pool remains fairly deep, and one other aspect of the team to credit to Jed. We have a solid starting lineup, and we could use a threatening bat or two off the bench. I fully expect that to materialize in 2026. 

On the pitching end, well, this was a very strange year.

***

Justin Steele: A-

Justin Steele only pitched in 4 games in 2025, and it's not fair to grade him, but based on those appearances, he would get an A-. He actually looked like he was getting better across those games, and probably would have gotten an A had the injury not happened. But it did, and his season was lost. He will be back in 2026, and he has a certain fire about him that I think should serve the team well. Once again he has something to prove, and he vowed to come back stronger than before. He was the Ace, and he will probably be the Ace again, but he'll now have to compete for that title with a couple other guys. 

Matthew Boyd: A

I don't think anyone was super excited about Matthew Boyd coming into the year. We lost Kyle Hendricks, and we got someone that wasn't that much younger, and had only recently been a little more successful. He was expected to fill out the rotation, maybe in the #4 or #5 slot behind Steele, Shota and Taillon. As we close the books on 2025, we have to acknowledge him as another one of Jed's greatest moves, and the most pleasant of the many surprises this year brought. 

He was an All-Star and it was unquestionably the greatest season of his career, and he had fun. He faltered slightly towards the end, and made everyone a little nervous in the NLDS, but was in top form in his final start and deserves to be recognized as the Ace of the staff. Whether he would be named Opening Day Starter in 2026 would likely be based on Spring Training performance comparison with Steele (assuming he is back in time, which I hope). There is, however, another potential Opening Day Starter in this rotation, and another one of the best stories of 2025. 

Cade Horton: A

He probably deserves an A+, but I'm reminded of one bad outing he had against the Astros. Regardless, this year he was often talked about in the same breath as Jake Arrieta, whose run through the 2nd half of 2015 was historically unmatched. Horton wasn't quite as electric as Arrieta in that time, and was under a strict pitch-count limitation, but simply put, he was outstanding.

His 2025 numbers end up very good: 11-4 with a 2.67 ERA in 118 IP with 97 Ks. Compare his 1st and 2nd half numbers, though. First half: 3-3 with 4.45 ERA. Second half: 8-1 with a 1.03 ERA. (Just for fun, Arrieta's 2nd half of 2015: 12-1 with 0.75 ERA and way more innings pitched--Arrieta had 110 more IP than Horton did this year--and was a pretty great hitting pitcher--no one can compete with that stretch.)

But we will take it. Horton could not pitch in the postseason due to injury, but he was ready to come back for the NLCS. Would we have made it there with him? Quite possibly. But pitching wasn't the major problem for the playoffs--it was pushing runners across, making the most out of limited baserunner opportunities. I don't think Horton is going win Rookie of the Year but he certainly deserves it. His second half alone justifies it, but at 118 IP for the year, may be seen as "not fully there," like say Paul Skenes was last year. You are not going to get a pitcher of that caliber winning Rookie of the Year most of the time. He is, in fact, one of the frontrunners regardless. But that is just for show. Horton cares about the team winning. He probably will not be the de facto Ace in 2026, but he will be #2 or #3 in the rotation, if the Cubs do not get a superstar starter, which would be really good for them to consider. In any case, he may be the single best story of 2026, as even though PCA was amazing, he did slump, and Horton was consistently magnificent, especially down the stretch, when it mattered most. Whether he's #2 or #3, he has probably eclipsed last year's Ace. 

Shota Imanaga: B

I gave him an A last year, and this was a big step back. He finished the year 9-8 with a 3.73. That ERA is still pretty decent. He had 57 less strikeouts this year in about 30 less innings pitched and four less starts. He was injured briefly in both seasons, but a little more this year. At a certain point last year, hitters "figured him out" and he was never a groundball pitcher, but he mystified enough hitters that home runs did not seem problematic. However, things escalated this year. 

While he gave up just 4 more home runs than last year (31 vs. 27), his second half was not very good. 1st half: 6-3, 2.65 ERA, 11 home runs allowed. 2nd half: 3-5, 4.70 ERA, 20 home runs allowed. Yeah it got worse, and some people think he's "tipping" his pitches and hitters have figured him out even more than they did before. 

People think he has bad struggles in the 1st inning, and yeah, I saw those--but I also saw him hunker down afterwards a few times, and turn in ultimately very solid performances. It was bad, but I think slightly overblown--the escalation in home runs is no joke though. I disagreed with having him start the 2nd inning in a game in Game 2 against the Padres. It was an experiment that backfired, but ultimately did not matter. It would have been his turn in the rotation to start Game 5 against Milwaukee, but the Cubs instead opted for a bullpen game of sorts + Colin Rea. We didn't fare much better, but again, the pitching wasn't poorly managed. I love Shota and hope he bounces back to 2024 form, though many acknowledged he might be over-performing. 

He has a very confusing contract situation that I won't try to lay out (I read about it here and recommend reading if you care, just because it truly is bonkers). Suffice to say, it doesn't make sense to me to let him go. Even with his struggles, he's still above-average. Dude almost threw a no-hitter last year (ended up only a combined one). If you have a rotation and Imanaga is your #5 starter, you are in a good spot. Conceivably it could happen if the Cubs land another superstar starter. Then you'd have, oh, say, Dylan Cease or Shane Bieber, #1 (*maybe*), #2 Steele, #3 Boyd, #4 Horton, #5 Imanaga [I forgot about the guy below the next. -Ed.]. That would be sick. But the Cubs have depth and they're probably not going to worry about much this postseason beyond the Kyle Tucker situation and thoughts of trying to bring in someone to replace what he brought to the team (which would be nearly impossible, if his second half matched his first half). So Imanaga may be #4, and you know what, that is also a pretty solid rotation. Especially if the next guy is #5. 

Colin Rea: A- 

Colin Rea pitched well for the Brewers last year, and he turned in basically an identical performance for the Cubs. For some reason his WAR was 1.2 last year and 0.6 this year, but that stat is seeming more and more meaningless to me. That makes it seem like he had no impact, but he really did have a huge impact. Another one of the excellent moves by Jed. These past two seasons are his two best seasons in the MLB. It's possible he's getting better with age. He's a free agent, and if the Cubs are morons and let him walk, he will likely be successful anywhere he goes. 

When Steele went down, he knew he would need to step up, and he totally did that. He wasn't quite as stunning as Boyd, but his numbers (11-7 with 3.95 ERA) arguably bested Imanaga. I think you would still slot Shota at #4, but if Rea is your #5, and if Rea returns in 2026 as strong as he's been the past two years, that should play just fine [Again, note player below, who should slot in #3 or #4 -Ed.]. Granted, he is a great option to have as a long reliever, too. So even if the Cubs do something out of character and make a play for a bigger name, I think you still keep Rea, because you never know what's going to happen, and he saved the day on numerous occasions this year. He arguably "overperformed" as well, but little was expected out of him. When he rose to the occasion after the Steele injury, people seemed to laud him, but frankly, I still think he was underappreciated. He was paid $5 MM this year, and he earned that. I don't know if you pay him $10 MM for a year, I don't know what you offer him, but if he was willing to sign for $5 MM for 1 more year again, it would be a mistake to pass him up. Then again, he sort of might become more relief pitcher than starter, and relievers are notoriously unstable year-to-year. Impossible to predict the future, but an A- for 2025 is fair. Arguably A- and above should only go to All-Stars, and yeah he did give up 16 homers in the 1st half but went 7-3 and 3.91 ERA and felt like a pseudo-snub. He only gave up 4 homers in the 2nd half--he pitched 25 less innings in that stretch, but it felt like he recognized the issue, and stepped his game up accordingly. You keep a guy like that. If he's destined for the bullpen next year, you just have to hope the #5 starter can perform as well as he did, and that won't be easy. He had plenty of good company, those days when he came out of the 'pen. And in starting the write-ups on those guys, I realize I completely forgot about one guy and that my rotation predictions are completely and horribly wrong. 

Jameson Taillon: A-

HOW COULD I FORGET ABOUT TAILLON??? Forgive me, Jameson. I'll only forgive myself by noting that Taillon flies under the radar. He's unassuming, not flashy, and apparently forgettable by me, but everyone will think I am an idiot for not editing the Shota and Rea entries that anticipate rotations without Taillon. Taillon absolutely will be part of the 2026 rotation, and Shota would be #5, and maybe not even in it if either Cease or Bieber are (though that would make me sad). 

Taillon's 2025 year end numbers are no better than his 2024, and I only gave him a B last year. He deserved better. If Rea is getting an A-, Taillon is getting an A-, because their numbers are quite similar. Taillon made quite a bit more money, so perhaps Rea should increase his ask. Regardless, Taillon proved his mettle in the postseason. He was a total stud and basically took the team to the NLDS with his Game 3 performance against the Padres: 4 innings, 2 hits, no runs. His game 3 performance in the NLDS wasn't quite as impressive (he gave up 5 hits and 2 runs), but we ended up winning that game and it changed the nature of the series. 

Like Shota, he also gave up a lot of home runs. Unlike Shota, he was outstanding in the 2nd half. He gave up 22 of the 24 home runs in the first half. He went 4-1 with a 1.57 ERA. Not quite as good as Horton, but good for 2nd best on the team (he was actually much better than Boyd in the second half). 

So really, I think Taillon figured it out by the end of the season, and pitched better than the numbers show. He's going into the last year of his contract, and perhaps that's not good for the pressure he may put on himself to have an even better showing, but the Cubs are going to try to show up next year, and Taillon is going to be a part of it, and if he somehow starts off next season as well as he ended this one, he will absolutely make the All-Star team. He's a former top prospect that did not seem to live up to his potential, until his age 30 season for the Yankees in 2022. The Cubs got him after that, and his 2023 was not as good, but the last two years, he has been up to that 2022 standard. It's still his best season, and while this one had his lowest number of innings pitched in a while, he also spent a good bit of it injured. So I have to think Taillon himself would acknowledge he is at the top of his game. What they do beyond 2026 is unclear but if Taillon turns up aces next year, he should be in line for an extension. This next guy is in that situation now. 

Brad Keller: A

Keller appeared in 68 games. I think it is fair to say that he was the most trusted member of the bullpen. Frankly, I have a hard time remembering a reliever that instilled as much confidence. Of course, you have to go back to that lights-out trio of Ryan Tepera, Andrew Chafin and Craig Kimbrel in 2020 or 2021. The Cubs bullpen was problematic in 2023 and 2024, and it is fair to say this was the best overall bullpen performance since that three-headed monster. 

Arguably the Cubs had as much of a good thing (and probably better) this year, with Daniel Palencia, Drew Pomeranz and Caleb Thielbar. All of them were excellent, but Keller stood apart. Only Michael Soroka had a better ERA coming out of the bullpen, but Keller pitched nearly 10x more than him, so I think he wins Rolaids Relief Man of the Year. I see now that is called the Trever Hoffman award, and that Ryan Helsley of the Cardinals won it last year. Helsley's numbers? OK, he had 49 saves and Keller had....3. But he wasn't the closer, he was the setup man. And maybe that award is basically "best closer." Regardless, Helsley's other numbers: 2.04 ERA, 66.1 IP, 50 hits, 23 walks, 79 Ks. Keller's numbers this year: 2.07 ERA, 69.2 IP, 45 hits, 22 walks, and 75 Ks. Slightly lower K rate, but also a lower hit rate. I think that's pretty equivalent, minus the saves. And it's telling that, even though Palencia basically became the closer, he scuffled slightly in a couple outings near the end, and in the playoffs got used earlier in the game, while Keller was saved for the end. In the postseason, Keller got 2 saves in the Cubs 4 wins, and Palencia had none. 

It's unclear whether he should be the closer, but it's very clear he had an outstanding season and absolutely must be re-signed, and I know basically 100% of Cubs fans will agree. (Maybe it's 99% as there are always a few contrarians amongst us.) And bonus points for Keller for saying this, "I love being in Chicago. I love playing for the Cubs. This is definitely a place that I want to come back to and enjoy. I know a lot of these guys are returning to this clubhouse, and I feel like there’s something special here. I would love to be a part of it, for sure.” 

ALL THAT SAID, this was by far his best season, by a longshot, and it's his breakout. And as noted many times, relievers tends to vary widely on a year-to-year basis. He made $1.5 million this year. I think PCA, Horton and Palencia all made $740K, so they were the best bargains, but they're all still on rookie contracts. They all will get paid a lot more soon. The Cubs took a chance on Keller and it paid off, another move by Jed that you cannot ignore. As with the next guy. He did well with the bullpen. 

Caleb Thielbar: A-

While Keller stood apart as the best, Thielbar is the obvious choice as the second-best in the bullpen. His numbers also would be similar to the Helsley comparison above: 2.64 ERA, 58 IP, 38 hits, 13 walks, and 56 Ks. He's a no-brainer to resign, like Keller. But, he is older. He will be 39 next year. The Cubs missed out on a couple aged closers, but Thielbar was their consolation prize, coming off a rocky year with the Twins after several years of consistent quality. Of course, relief pitchers are volatile (we should just assume this for every bullpen pitcher and not mention it every time). He made $2.75 million this year, and that is fair for what he brought to the team. I think he had a very long scoreless streak, early on. I don't know but I think if he's willing to sign for 1 more year at that $ amount, you do it. He was just too good to ignore, and a big part of why the Cubs managed to survive as long as they did while their pitching staff was compromised by injuries pretty much the entire way through. While Turner was the old man on the team and played like it, Thielbar showed you should not count out guys on the wrong side of 35. His counterpart, fellow 38-year-old Ryan Brasier, also fared better than Turner, but didn't pitch as much and I think if you have to choose which one to re-sign, it's Thielbar, as Brasier's performance could best be described as "adequate." Thielbar kept this team in too many games to count, and while I don't think his 2026 will be better than his 2025, I'd still keep him pitching alongside Keller. They'll never be the Tepera-Chafin-Kimbrel trio, but Thielbar-Keller-Palencia wasn't all that bad.

Daniel Palencia: A-

Ryan Pressly entered the season as the Cubs best closing option, but his greatest contribution to the team ended up being his mentorship to Palencia, who told him what everyone told him and why I did not like him in 2023 (he was limited to 10 games in 2024 and looked even worse), which is that he needed to get his control issues figured out. He seemed to do that this year. He was still a little wild at times, but his wildness mostly translated into his personal appearance. 

He grew his hair out, and added some drip, continued to throw 100 MPH, and a lot more often for strikes. By the end of the season Pressly was DFA'd and Palencia was the closer. He got 22 saves. 

I'm pretty sure, without checking first, his numbers don't quite stack up to Keller's or Thielbar's. We're ignoring Win-Loss records for relief pitchers for reasons that I think should be obvious. To do the Helsley comparison again: 2.91 ERA, 52.2 IP, 44 hits, 16 walks, and 61 Ks. That's totally comparable and while I was right that Keller and Thielbar were slightly better, those numbers will play just fine. He was perfect against the Padres in the Wild Card Series, and not quite as good against the Brewers (actually not good, but he pitched in 4 out of the 5 games). 

He's still super young, so I'm not totally convinced, but if his enhanced control is here to stay, he is an extremely valuable pitcher. He has redeemed himself 100%. Even if he blew that save near the end of the year, it was forgivable. Unless the Cubs acquire a true lights-out closer, it feels like he should occupy that role. It feels a little tedious to keep writing about relief pitchers but there was yet a 4th guy that was "on the level," and another guy whose contract is up and whose re-signing will be roundly endorsed. 

Drew Pomeranz: A-

Pomeranz did not start the season on the Cubs, but he was signed before May. He had been an All-Star in 2016. He was also older (36), and while he pitched extremely well in 2020 and 2021 for the Padres in a somewhat limited role, he was injured in 2022 and did not play in either 2023 or 2024. Again, Jed did well on a "low risk, high reward" flyer. To do the main numbers again: 2.17 ERA, 49.2 IP, 38 hits, 15 walks and 57 Ks. Yes, the Cubs had 4 total studs in the bullpen in 2025. 

I guess he's higher profile than the others because he's a former starter, and he did make a few spot-starts this season. But his performance out of the bullpen was remarkable. Like Thielbar, I believe he also had a lengthy scoreless streak. I'm running out of things to say, because bullpen pitchers are just kind of there, they just show up, and they have to limit damage or prevent any further runs, and they do not get enough credit and they work just as hard as starting pitchers because they have to be ready to go at a moment's notice and they generally have to work in high-leverage situations. Pomeranz performed beautifully and was instrumental in the success of the team in 2025 and absolutely should be brought back along with the other two above (Palencia is under contract and does not present any decision except his role). It's a longshot that all 4 will be as good in 2026, but you need to reward them, too, with acknowledgment, appreciation, and maybe a little more money (but just a little, this is the Cubs organization). 

Ben Brown: C

Ben Brown's trajectory has been a bit strange. I forgot about him last year and didn't grade him, which isn't that insane because he only pitched 55 innings, but he would have gotten a high B.  It's more insane I was going to leave him off this year because he pitched 106 innings and started 15 games. Apparently, he "won" the 5th spot in the rotation over Colin Rea at the end of Spring Training. That made sense in light of his 2024. At times, Ben Brown is electric. Anecdotally, he appeared to show more flashes of that in 2024 than 2025, but I am also a bit off. I'm considering a game I watched from an Air BNB in Michigan in late April, against the Phillies. He was not terrible in that game, per se, but it was not a magnificent outing. In any case, apparently he went toe-to-toe with Tarik Skubal in June and almost matched his performance (they both pitched 7 innings, but Brown gave up 2 runs while Skubal only gave up 1, and Tigers won). Brown's ceiling is still very high. But, I think he only throws 2 pitches. I hear this a lot. And I know his control is not great. He strikes a lot of guys out. He has the highest K/9 rate amongst starters at 10.9. That's important, but then he also walks guys and gives up a lot of home runs, though technically Taillon and Shota gave them up at a higher rate. By the end of the year, Brown was basically reduced to the role of "mop up man." EVEN SO, people were still suggesting it wouldn't be a terrible idea to have him start a NLDS game against the Brewers, as he had been effective against them. Nobody is giving up on Ben Brown, but let's just say, given all we've said above, it may be difficult for him to make the rotation. He can be a valuable asset but it appears that will most likely be as a long reliever. 

***

There are a lot of other guys that were not as good, but they were taken off the roster. Tyson Miller, who was great last year, suddenly was not, and he was gone. Nate Pearson, who seemed to struggle most of the times I saw him come in, also was gone. Ryan Pressly is gone, though he pitched in 44 games before that happened, and had been occasionally effective. Porter Hodge, thought to be the closer in waiting at the end of last year, before Pressly was acquired, took a major step back in a perfect illustration of relief pitcher volatility. He would have gotten an A last year, as he put up fantastic numbers in line with the 4 above. This year, he only pitched in 3 fewer games, and 10 fewer innings, but his ERA went from 1.88 last year to 6.27. He may have been injured, and I'm uncertain of how the Cubs will handle but believe he is still technically on the team. Julian Merryweather has also slid. After a 2023 on the level of Hodge's 2024 or the 4 above, his 2024 and 2025 seasons have been borderline disastrous, and think his contract may be up--I wouldn't be surprised if he bounces back but it will probably be elsewhere. Jordan Wicks had something of a lost season, after something of a lost season in 2024 also, though he did make 10 starts last year. He's still with us, and it's still possible he'll bounce back, but would anticipate more time in AAA unless we are decimated by injuries. Which definitely happened this year. But the way the team weathered it, and the way Counsell managed it, made it tolerable. And that's one of the most impressive things of all. Javier Assad stepped up in a major way last year (akin to Colin Rea this year), but spent quite a lot of 2025 injured. We were waiting for him to come back and save us when we were decimated early on, and his timeline kept getting pushed back. He did eventually return, but he was just OK. He wasn't awful, but he did not seem as good. Actually, he started 7 games--but that's 22 less than last year, and he pitched 110 fewer innings. His ERA technically was lower this year and he actually went 4-1, but I would not have graded him higher than last year. He's in a similar spot to Ben Brown, I would say. 

And there were other guys that were also, pretty good. I think there was some shade on Michael Soroka because he was a "big trading deadline move" and then got injured immediately. But he was technically the ERA leader at 1.08. Then again that was only in 6 games and 8.1 IP. Hardly a fair sample size. Aaron Civale is in a similar boat, with an ERA at 2.08, but only 13 IP. Look, we've got 4 stars in the bullpen, but you need more than just 4, and no guarantee they'll be as good next year either. I think you keep these two guys. Chris Flexen (whose nickname is "Big Baby," I've just learned) was another bright spot, and he did have a bigger sample size at 43.2 IP. His ERA was 3.09 and if I'm not mistaken he was also on a longer scoreless streak a la Pomeranz and Thielbar. Keep him. Andrew Kittredge fared a bit better, though I did not like how he started over Shota in Game 2 against the Padres. He went for 53 innings but the first half of the year was in Baltimore for him. He was quite good with a 3.32 ERA. He did get the save in Game 3, and I was nervous because he pitched in all 3 games. In short he "ascended" into the "circle of trust" in the playoffs, and he didn't totally falter, though he did give up 1 run each in 2 outings against the Brewers. I think he'll stay on the team. Most teams have 7-8 relief pitchers, and from what I can tell here, we have that many that did very well. It'll be good to have a couple for insurance purposes.    

The main point is, we had serious bullpen problems the past two years, and I think it's fair to say that in 2025, we did not really have a bullpen problem. And it was managed well.

Craig Counsell: A-

Counsell lived up to his billing and his salary this year. He probably deserves an A. The Cubs were the best team in baseball, at several moments, though they only had the best record in baseball for a game or two. The Brewers came out of nowhere and shocked the league, but the NLCS result was not surprising. The Dodgers truly are built for the postseason, and we will root hard for the Blue Jays over this next week (we finish this post on 10/21/25, the night after the Blue Jays beat the Mariners in Game 7). But back to Counsell. He will always make a few moves with which I disagree, and sometimes backfire. But at the end of the day, he's good about making decent challenges to umps, telling them to take another look when appropriate and getting a higher percentage of overturns (I'm unaware of this stat but I'm curious). And he's good about managing the pitching staff. 

I think a lot of people had issues with his starting lineup and batting orders, but what are you going to do, when you have as many streaky hitters as this team has. The problem used to be the bullpen, I said, but there's always been an offense problem. It feels insane to say this team had an offense problem in 2025, because they tore the cover off the ball as well or better than most teams in the MLB. But when they got cold, they got very, very cold. And it's frankly remarkable that they held on through the 2nd half as long as they did. After the All-Star break, I feel like the team was barely cracking .500. And it's true, they went 35-31 in the 2nd half. By the end of May, the team was in a super powerful position, and then there was a pseudo-"June swoon" where they only played .500, and then July was stronger......but don't forget, this season started off with the toughest schedule in baseball, and they totally killed it. Their struggles began when they faced weaker teams, but any team can win on any given day. And the Cubs won the Wild Card Series and made it to the NLDS. I think we did better than we imagined. We could dream about the World Series again. It didn't seem impossible. And from this position now, it doesn't seem delusional to think we can do even better in 2026. And I don't think most Cubs fans have felt that way for a long time. 

This post is long enough, and there's a lot I'm leaving out. Like, Matthew Boyd's pick-offs, or the loss of a Cubs icon and my favorite player growing up. That was terribly sad*. And it was sad we couldn't win it for Ryno. But may his spirit continue to stay at Wrigley and with the team, and may his example continue to inspire future Cubs greats, so that they also might one day have their name on a flagpole. It felt a bit like losing Ernie Banks, which coincided with the run from 2015-2017. Let's hope we can say the same for 2025-2027, and maybe even hopefully beyond. 

***

*I would even pour one out for Charlie, as abhorrent as I found him. He got at least one thing right: he knew which team to root for. Reserve comments on Matt Shaw and to a lesser extent Busch. We are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs and part of what makes the Cubs great is how they bring so many different types of people together over a common goal. We are all brothers and sisters in certain regards, and even if we may not like our brothers and sisters in this fandom very much, we are united in other ways. And for the most part, I have to say, we do have the greatest fans in the world and it was a pleasure to be a part of the run this year. I got to see 2 of the greatest baseball games of my entire life, and then also 2 of the toughest losses in my life. There's always heartache and frustration, but there's also joy, and on the whole, it was a fun ride.