Culture
Five things to watch on the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot: How can Ichiro not be unanimous?
Woohoo. It’s that time again. Hall of Fame election time.
Baseball’s 2025 Hall ballot was announced Monday — featuring one guy destined for an all-time landslide (Ichiro Suzuki) and 27 other names you know all too well.
We’ll learn who made it — besides Ichiro, that is — in two months. So as the suspense builds, here come Five Things to Watch on the 2025 Hall of Fame ballot.
1. Ichiro’s unanimous decision?
Ichiro won’t need to hold his breath on election day. But will it be unanimous? (Otto Greule Jr. / Getty Images)
Here we go again. From the same group that decided Babe Ruth, Willie Mays and Henry Aaron couldn’t possibly be unanimous Hall of Famers, what the heck are the baseball writers going to do about Ichiro Suzuki?
After nine decades of voting by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America, Mariano Rivera remains the only player elected unanimously. But zero unanimous position players in almost a century? Think how hard it’s been to pull that off. But our esteemed association is innovative like that — apparently.
Just last winter, I thought Adrian Beltré had an outside shot to be unanimous. Nope. He somehow got left off 19 ballots. Nineteen!
Before that, I figured Derek Jeter was almost a lock to be unanimous in 2020. Oh, man. He missed by one vote. Then there was Ken Griffey Jr. in 2016. How could he not show up on every ballot, I thought. But what was I thinking? His name went unchecked on three of them.
So now it’s Ichiro’s turn. Everyone from Topeka to Tokyo knows Ichiro is a Hall of Famer. So come on, people. What reason could any voter possibly have not to vote for a guy who collected a staggering 4,367 hits on two continents — with 3,089 of them coming on this side of the Pacific (all after age 27)?
Or what logical justification would any voter have for not checking the name of the only player in history to spin off 10 seasons in a row with 200 hits and a Gold Glove Award? Nobody else who ever lived even had five seasons in a row like that.
Or how about this: How huge an all-around force was Ichiro? According to Baseball Reference, he finished his big-league career with 84 Batting Runs above average, 121 Fielding Runs above average and 62 Baserunning Runs above average.
Did you know only two outfielders in history had a career remotely like that — with at least 80 Batting Runs, 110 Fielding Runs and 50 Baserunning Runs? One was Ichiro. The other? Willie Mays.
So how is any voter going to explain why he didn’t vote for that guy — a global baseball icon, one of two players in American League/National League history to win MVP and Rookie of the Year awards in the same season and — let’s just mention this again, OK? — the man who got more hits than anyone who ever played baseball in the two greatest leagues on Earth?
History tells us we should always take the “under” if the category is “unanimous Hall of Famer.” But if Ichiro Suzuki doesn’t get there, it’s not just embarrassing. It’s practically an international incident waiting to happen.
GO DEEPER
Untold stories of Ichiro: Wrestling with Griffey, All-Star speeches and ‘Ichi wings’
2. Billy Wagner: 10 and in or 10 and done?
Close call: Billy Wagner got 73.8 percent of the vote last year. (Mike Fiala / AFP via Getty Images)
Five votes away. That’s where everybody’s favorite diminutive smoke-balling closer, Billy Wagner, stood when the voting dust had settled after last year’s election. Five votes from the plaque gallery. So of course he’s going to round up those five votes this time, right?
Or is he?
Logic would tell us that we’ve put him through enough torture. It’s his 10th (and final) year on the writers’ ballot. So nobody needs to remind him that the climb to the summit of Mount Cooperstown can feel more precarious than a jaunt up Mount Kilimanjaro.
In his first three orbits on this ballot, Wagner never got more than 47 votes in any election. In his last three, he reeled in 201, 265 and 284. That means he has added 158 votes just in the past four elections. So how could he not attract five more votes to reach the necessary 75 percent threshold this time, when everyone knows his Hall of Fame legacy is on the line?
But that’s the logical part of our brains talking. When my fellow voters look at closers, they’ve been known to apply a whole different set of standards. So am I positive that the most unhittable left-handed reliever in history is going to be giving an induction speech next July? No!
On one hand, Wagner’s claims to historic greatness haven’t changed. He still ranks No. 1 in the modern era among all left-handed pitchers in ERA, WHIP, strikeout rate, opponent average and opponent OPS. (Minimum: 900 innings.) Is that Cooperstown-y enough? Seems like it. That’s why I vote for him, anyway.
On the other hand, all those voters who ask, “How’d he do in October?” haven’t gone away, either. They’re stuck on Wagner’s 10.03 postseason ERA, and they can’t get past it.
Look, I get it. October matters. So I’ve taken a deep, game-by-game dive into those outings – and found enough strange stuff in those games to conclude they’re not as disqualifying as that ERA makes them appear.
But that’s me. And I only get to vote once. So while I think Wagner is going to clear this bar — and join Larry Walker, Edgar Martinez and Tim Raines as the most recent members of the prestigious Elected in Their Last Shot Club — nothing would shock me.
As I wrote last January, after he’d just missed getting elected, it’s a good thing this guy was a closer for a living — because nobody knows better than a closer that the last out is always the hardest to get. Can Billy Wagner close this deal? We’ll let you know in two months.
GO DEEPER
How a broken arm — and an unbroken spirit — took Billy Wagner to the doorstep of the Hall
GO DEEPER
Billy Wagner reflects on the emotions of just missing the Hall of Fame
3. Is there a third Hall of Famer in the house?
Can Andruw Jones snare enough votes to get elected? (John Iacono / Sports Illustrated via Getty Images)
I know the premise of that question assumes that we’ll even have a second Hall of Famer (Wagner) elected from this ballot. But let’s just go with that – OK? — and look at whether anyone among the remaining 26 candidates has a shot to get to 75 percent.
It feels as if there are only three realistic possibilities: Andruw Jones, Carlos Beltrán and CC Sabathia. Let’s discuss them.
Andruw Jones (61.6 percent — 62 votes short last time)
Hard to believe it’s Jones’ eighth year on the ballot, but it’s true. So you’d think we’d have a clear view of whether he has a safe path to Cooperstown by now, wouldn’t you? But do we? Not from my scenic overlook, we don’t.
The good news is, he got more votes last time than any returning position player. And if you’re a modern-metrics kind of voter, you can’t help but have noticed that, according to Baseball Reference, Jones rolled up more career wins above replacement (62.7) than two of the three guys who got elected in 2024, Todd Helton and Joe Mauer.
But …
Jones’ dramatic decline after age 30 is shaping up as a mammoth roadblock for those 148 voters who still aren’t checking his name. After adding over 200 votes and zooming from under 8 percent to more than 58 percent in just four years (2020-21-22-23), he added only 11 votes last year (and 3.5 percentage points).
Does it seem significant that that was the smallest jump of anyone on the upper tier of the ballot? I think it does.
So can he now flip 62 more “no” votes to “yes” this year after flipping only 11 last year? I’m no Steve Kornacki, but I’m a “nay” on that.
Carlos Beltrán (57.1 percent — 69 votes short last time)
It’s Year 3 of this derby for Beltrán, who is now the answer to this cool trivia question:
Who owns the most career WAR of anyone on this ballot not known as “A-Rod”?
That’s Carlos Beltrán, all right, at 70.1. But now comes a harder question: What did this guy’s first two rides on the ballot tell us?
In Year 1, Beltrán got 46.5 percent of the vote — a clear indication that many, many voters could still hear those Astros trash-can lids banging. But then a funny thing happened in Year 2:
He soared to 57.1 percent. And if you were paying attention, you might have detected that it happened to be the largest jump (10.6 percentage points) of any returning player.
So does that mean he’s now going to be treated like a “normal” candidate? Does it say that lots of voters were just imposing a temporary purgatory on him for that messy (but brief) Houston portion of his career, but now they’re over it? Hey, I don’t know. I just read the tea leaves.
But if those 2024 tea leaves are telling the story I think they’re telling, there’s a Hall of Fame speech in Beltrán’s future.
Over the past 50 elections, five other players have debuted on the ballot at 40 percent or higher and then jumped by at least 10 percentage points the next year. Those five: Jeff Bagwell, Ryne Sandberg, Barry Larkin, Ferguson Jenkins and Catfish Hunter. Want to guess why we mention that?
Yep, it’s because we know how the voters treated all five of those guys after that. Namely … they elected every one of them. So if that’s telling us anything about how they’ll treat Beltrán, I’d pick 2026 as Carlos Beltrán’s Induction Weekend. But we’re just guessing — until this 2025 election tells us how voters really look at him.
CC Sabathia (first year on the ballot)
I can’t wait to see Sabathia’s Year 1 vote total. I wouldn’t be shocked if it’s 76 percent. I wouldn’t be shocked if it’s 46 percent — or pretty much any other number you’d like to pick out of his cap.
That’s because it’s hard to think of any candidate quite like CC.
If you close your eyes and don’t spend any time looking at his Baseball Reference page, he feels like a Hall of Famer. He walks and talks like a Hall of Famer. And he definitely has the spectacular highlight reel of a Hall of Famer.
But does he have the actual numbers of a Hall of Famer? Um, it depends on which numbers you look at.
If you’re a yes, maybe it’s because he’s one of only three left-handed pitchers in the live-ball era (since 1920) in the 250-Win, 3,000-Strikeout Club. The others: Randy Johnson and Steve Carlton.
But if you’re a no, it’s because you’re staring at Sabathia’s 3.74 career ERA. Incredibly, that would be the highest of any left-handed starter in the Hall of Fame (not to mention third-highest overall, behind Jack Morris’ 3.90 and Red Ruffing’s 3.80).
Then there’s also CC’s place on this ballot alongside two other left-handers who blew past 200 wins and had long, distinguished, reliable careers: Andy Pettitte and Mark Buehrle.
| Pitcher | W-L | ERA+ |
|---|---|---|
|
Pettitte |
256-153 |
117 |
|
Buehrle |
214-160 |
117 |
|
Sabathia |
251-161 |
116 |
(Source: Baseball Reference)
Ooh. So what are we to make of that, huh? Did it feel, as you were watching them, that there was that little separation between those three guys? I’d say no. But there they are, on the same ballot all of a sudden. And who knows what that will mean.
Maybe it boosts Pettitte and Buehrle more than it dings CC. But Pettitte and Buehrle have spent a combined 10 years on this ballot and neither one has come within 150 votes of getting elected. So what about that fact suggests that CC is about to sail in on the first ballot? Not much!
To be clear, I think CC Sabathia is a Hall of Famer. But is he two months from getting elected? That uncertainty explains what he’s doing in this part of the column.
4. How many first-timers make it to Year 2?
Dustin Pedroia is part of a special first-year class. (Billie Weiss / Boston Red Sox / Getty Images)
Check out these names. They’re all making their debut on the Hall of Fame ballot in this cycle. You’ve heard of them.
Ichiro … CC … Dustin Pedroia … Félix Hernández … Troy Tulowitzki … Ben Zobrist … Ian Kinsler … Curtis Granderson … Hanley Ramirez.
Now … are you ready for a breaking news bulletin that’s almost sure to shock you?
Those nine players make up one of the most historic first-year ballot classes in modern voting history.
So how is that, you ask? Here’s how: Only one other time, in the six decades since Hall of Fame voting became an annual event, have we had that many first-timers with a big enough peak that they had at least two seasons worth 6.0 WAR or more, according to Baseball Reference.
Baseball Reference research whiz Kenny Jackelen checked this out for us, and it’s true. The only other year, under the modern voting system, when nine players like that debuted on any ballot was in 2013, when all these men arrived:
Barry Bonds (16 six-win seasons), Roger Clemens (11), Curt Schilling (five), Mike Piazza (four), Kenny Lofton (three), Shawn Green (three), Craig Biggio (three), Sammy Sosa (two) and Julio Franco (two).
The breakdown this year: Sabathia and Tulowitzki had four 6.0-WAR seasons. Pedroia had three. And everyone else had two. And yes, that includes Ichiro.
But wait. We have an asterisk. And it brings Brian McCann and Russell Martin into the argument.
Those two are also making their ballot debuts. And while Baseball Reference rates them as having zero 6.0-WAR seasons, the FanGraphs version of WAR says Martin had two of those seasons and McCann had four. We think that’s worth noting, if only because there are so many catcher fans who think FanGraphs’ WAR uses a better formula for valuing a catcher’s defensive impact.
So if you also add in someone like Carlos González, who was just short of two 6.0-WAR seasons himself, that’s a dozen new players on this ballot who had a run, for at least a couple of seasons, that made you say: That guy’s a star. Rest assured, ballots like this don’t come along very often.
But nobody’s going to the Hall of Fame based on two or three great years. So here’s the big question: How many of these first-timers have enough volume to make it to Year 2 on this ballot?
It takes at least 5 percent of the vote to pull that off. And for what it’s worth, only two first-timers cleared that bar last year: Chase Utley (28.8 percent) and David Wright (6.2).
I’ll predict that this year’s class beats that — with Sabathia, Pedroia and King Félix all finishing north of 5 percent. And maybe Tulo (who had a six-year run in the Best Player in Baseball conversation) and Kinsler (one of the two second basemen in history with two seasons in the 30-30 Club) join them.
It’s been over a decade since more than three first-timers got enough votes to make it back for another election. (That 2013 class produced six of them.) But if it’s ever going to happen again, this feels like the year.
5. Is there Cooperstown life after the Roaring 20s?
Chase Utley got 28.8 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot. Jimmy Rollins, who is on the ballot for the fourth time, has an even steeper hill to climb. (Hunter Martin / Getty Images)
Hall of Fame voting would be easy if everyone on the ballot were like Ichiro. We’d just fire a few hundred votes their way and move on to the next living legend.
Except, of course, that’s not how this goes at all. So just in the last eight years, we’ve elected five players who once had vote percentages that were in the 20s — or lower:
| Player | Year Elected | Lowest % |
|---|---|---|
|
Todd Helton |
2024 |
16.5 |
|
Scott Rolen |
2023 |
10.2 |
|
Larry Walker |
2020 |
20.3 |
|
Mike Mussina |
2019 |
20.3 |
|
Tim Raines |
2017 |
22.6 |
Does anyone else find that fascinating? Thought so! It means that voters’ perspectives on all those players evolved so dramatically that every one of them had to (at least) triple their vote total to make it onto that stage in Cooperstown. And you know what — that’s OK with me.
It says we never stop thinking about what a Hall of Famer is and isn’t. Why is there a 10-year window for every player on the ballot? That’s why. Because snap judgments aren’t necessarily the most accurate judgments.
So what does that have to do with the 2025 Hall of Fame ballot? It’s a reason to ask: So who’s next?
Maybe that answer is obvious: Billy Wagner. Like Rolen, he was once as low as 10.2 percent. Nowadays, the ballot isn’t as crowded as it was when he debuted. And it’s possible we view closers through a different lens. So boom, here he is, on the verge of getting elected.
Then there’s Andruw Jones. In his first year on the ballot, he got a mere 7.3 percent! And now he, too, has a shot at election.
But what about the nine players returning to this ballot who got between 6 percent and 29 percent of the vote last year? Are any of them positioned to follow this path? Here are three who could:
Andy Pettitte (Year 7) — I’ve already predicted that Sabathia is headed for Cooperstown one of these years. And we’ve seen, in this very column, how similar Pettitte’s numbers are to CC’s. The road to Cooperstown isn’t supposed to begin with six straight elections in which a player gets 17 percent of the vote or less. But you know what causes voters’ perspectives to change? When a very similar player arrives on the ballot — and winds up in the plaque gallery!
Chase Utley (Year 2) — Here’s another prediction. Utley is going to get elected. He got only 28.8 percent last year, so he was 178 votes away. And his counting numbers (1,885 hits, 259 homers) seemed to act as blinking red lights for the traditionalists in this voting crowd.
But there’s a major voting shift coming, one that’s already begun, in fact — away from those traditional magic counting numbers and toward guys with dominant Hall of Fame-type peaks, who also had a big impact on winning. And you know when that shift will hit home? When Buster Posey (1,500 hits, 158 homers) shows up on the ballot in two years. I can’t think of anyone on this ballot whose candidacy will be helped by Posey more than Utley.
Jimmy Rollins (Year 4) — And you know whose Hall of Fame case should then get a boost from Utley? How ’bout Rollins, his longtime double-play partner in South Philly.
The truth is, Rollins actually has a better Hall case than Utley, even though he got about half as many votes as his former teammate last year. Why? An MVP trophy. A World Series trophy. More than 2,400 hits. Four Gold Gloves. Not to mention 200 homers, 400 steals and 857 extra-base hits. He’s the only shortstop in history who had that career. Plus, he combines a big peak and those traditional counting numbers.
What he lacks is Utley’s huge sabermetric cred. But the last decade of Hall voting is overflowing with examples of how one player’s election can magically elevate another, just by connecting their dots. (Ask Larry Walker and Todd Helton.) So it’s bound to happen again. And you know where we can look for clues?
When those 2025 Hall election results are announced, two months down another Cooperstown road. I don’t know about you, but I can’t wait.
GO DEEPER
The Athletic’s 2025 Baseball Hall of Fame reader survey: Vote for your picks
GO DEEPER
A salute to Ichiro, CC Sabathia and the other 12 newcomers to the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot
GO DEEPER
The case for — and against — each of the Classic Baseball Era Hall of Fame candidates
GO DEEPER
Baseball Hall of Fame tiers: Which active players are on course for Cooperstown?
(Top photo of Ichiro Suzuki: Otto Greule Jr. / Getty Images)
Culture
Book Review: ‘Selling Opportunity,’ by Mary Lisa Gavenas
SELLING OPPORTUNITY: The Story of Mary Kay, by Mary Lisa Gavenas
Mary Kay, the cosmetics company whose multilevel marketing included sales parties and whose biggest earners were awarded pink Cadillacs, was really in the business of selling second chances. Or, at least, that’s what Mary Lisa Gavenas argues in “Selling Opportunity,” a dual biography of the brand and the woman behind it.
Mary Kathlyn Wagner, who would become Mary Kay Ash, “the most famous saleswoman in the world” and “maybe the most famous ever,” in Gavenas’s extravagant words, was born in 1918 to a poor family and raised mostly in Houston. Although a good student, she eloped at 16 with a slightly older boy. The young couple had two babies in quick succession.
Mary Kay’s creation was a combination of timing and good luck. Door-to-door sales was a thriving industry — but, traditionally, a man’s world: Lugging heavy samples was not considered feminine, and entering the homes of strangers, unsafe. But things began to change during the Great Depression, Gavenas suggests, thanks to a convergence of factors — financial pressures and the rise of the aspirational prosperity gospel espoused by Dale Carnegie’s self-help manuals.
At the same time, female-run beauty lines like Annie Turnbo Malone’s Poro and Madam C.J. Walker’s were finding great success in Black communities. And, coincidentally or otherwise, the California Perfume Company changed its name to Avon Products in 1939.
Ash began by selling books door to door, moving on to Stanley Home Products in the 1940s. She was talented, but direct sales was a rough gig. Every party to show off wares was supposed to beget two more bookings; these led to sales that resulted in new recruits. But there was no real security or stability: no salary, no medical benefits, no vacations. “Stop selling and you would end up right back where you started. Or worse,” the author writes.
Gavenas, a onetime beauty editor who wrote “Color Stories,” takes her time unspooling Mary Kay’s tale, with a great deal of evident research. We learn about direct sales, women’s rights and Texas history.
But, be warned: Readers must really enjoy both this woman and this world to take pleasure in “Selling Opportunity.” Mary Kay the person keeps marrying, getting divorced or widowed and working her way through various sales jobs (it’s hard to keep track of the myriad companies and last names). Gavenas seems to leave no detail out. Thus, the 1963 founding of the eponymous beauty company doesn’t come until almost 200 pages in.
Beauty by Mary Kay included a Cleansing Cream, a Magic Masque and a Nite Cream (which containined ammoniated mercury, later banned by the F.D.A.). The full line of products — which was how Mary Kay strongly encouraged customers to buy them — ran to a steep $175 in today’s money. (To fail to acquire the whole set, Ash said, was “like giving you my recipe for chocolate cake but leaving out an important ingredient.”)
Potential clients attended gatherings at acquaintances’ homes — no undignified doorbell-ringing here — where they received a mini facial, then an application of cosmetics like foundation, lip color and cream rouge — and a wig. The company made $198,514 in sales its first year.
Although Ash may have seemed a pioneer, in many ways Mary Kay was a traditionalist company, whose philosophy was “God first, family second, career third.” Saleswomen, official literature dictated, were working to provide themselves with treats rather than necessities so as not to threaten their breadwinner husbands.
And yet, they were also encouraged to sell sell sell. Golden Goblet pendants were awarded for major orders. After the company started using custom pink Peterbilt trucks for shipping, it began commissioning those Cadillacs for top consultants. (Mary Kay preferred gifts to cash bonuses, lest women save the money to spend on practical things rather than the licensed frivolities.) The Cadillacs, always driven on company leases, would become industry legend and part of American pop culture lore. “Never to be run-down, repainted or resold, the cars would double as shining pink advertisements for her selling opportunity,” Gavenas writes.
The woman herself was iconic, too. While Ash was a product of the Depression, she was also undeniably over-the-top. She wore white suits with leopard trim, lived in a custom Frank L. Meier house and brought her poodle to the office.
Mary Kay went public in 1968, making her the first woman to chair a company on the New York Stock Exchange. By the 1990s, the Mary Kay headquarters near Dallas was almost 600,000 square feet. They commissioned a hagiographic company biopic; there was a Mary Kay consultant Barbie; they were making $1 billion in wholesale. When she died, in 2001, Ash was worth $98 million.
And yet, Gavenas cites that at the company’s height, in 1992, sales reps made on average just $2,400 per year.
Instead of so much time in the pink fantasia of Mary Kay, it would have been nice for a few detours showing how infrequently the opportunities the company sold were truly realized.
SELLING OPPORTUNITY: The Story of Mary Kay | By Mary Lisa Gavenas | Viking | 435 pp. | $35
Culture
Historical Fiction Books That Illustrate the Bonds Between Mother and Child
We often think of the past as if it were another world — and in some ways, it is. The politics, religion and social customs of other eras can be vastly different from our own. But one thing historians and historical fiction writers alike often notice is the constancy of human emotion. The righteous anger of a customer complaining about a Mesopotamian copper merchant in 1750 B.C. feels familiar. Tributes to beloved household pets from ancient Romans and Egyptians make us smile. And we are captivated by stories of love, betrayal and sacrifice from Homer to Shakespeare and beyond.
In literature, letters, tablets and even on coins, we find overwhelming evidence that people in the past felt the same emotions we do. Love, hate, fear, grief, joy: These feelings were as much a part of their lives as they are of our own. And they resonate especially acutely in the bond between mother and child. Here are eight historical novels that explore the meaning of motherhood across the centuries.
Culture
How ‘The Sheep Detectives’ Brought its Ovine Sleuths to Life
Sometime in the 2000s, the producer Lindsay Doran asked her doctor for a book recommendation. “I’m reading that book everybody’s reading,” the doctor replied. “You know, the one about the shepherd who’s murdered and the sheep solve the crime.”
Doran had not heard of the book, “Three Bags Full,” a best-selling novel by a German graduate student (“No one’s reading it,” she recalls responding, inaccurately), but she was struck by what sounded like an irresistible elevator pitch. “Everything came together for me in that one sentence,” she said. “The fact that it was sheep rather than some other animal felt so resonant.”
Doran spent years trying to extricate the book from a complicated rights situation, and years more turning it into a movie. The result, opening Friday, is “The Sheep Detectives,” which features Nicholas Braun and Emma Thompson as humans, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Patrick Stewart and others giving voice to C.G.I. sheep stirred from their customary ruminations by the death of their shepherd, George (Hugh Jackman).
The film, rated PG, is an Agatha Christie-lite mystery with eccentric suspects, a comically bumbling cop (Braun) and a passel of ovine investigators. It’s also a coming-of-age story about growing up and losing your innocence that might have a “Bambi”-like resonance for children. The movie’s sheep have a way of erasing unpleasant things from their minds — they believe, for instance, that instead of dying, they just turn into clouds — but learn that death is an inextricable part of life.
“In some ways, the most important character is Mopple, the sheep played by Chris O’Dowd,” the screenwriter, Craig Mazin, said in a video interview. “He has a defect — he does not know how to forget — and he’s been carrying his memories all alone.”
“Three Bags Full” is an adult novel that includes grown-up themes like drugs and suicide. In adapting it for a younger audience, Mazin toned down its darker elements, changed its ending, and — for help in writing about death — consulted a book by Fred Rogers, TV’s Mister Rogers, about how to talk to children about difficult subjects.
The journey from book to film has been long and circuitous. “Three Bags Full” was written by Leonie Swann, then a 20-something German doctoral student studying English literature. Distracting herself from her unwritten dissertation, on the topic of “the animal point of view in fiction,” she began a short story “playing around with the idea of sheep detectives,” she said. “And I realized it was more like a novel, and it wasn’t the worst novel I’d ever seen.”
Why sheep? “I wasn’t someone who was thinking about sheep all the time,” Swann, who lives in the English countryside and has a dog named Ezra Hound, said in a video interview. Yet they have always hovered on the periphery of her life.
There was a friendly sheep that she used to see on her way to school. There was an irate ram that once chased her through the streets of a Bavarian village. And there were thousands and thousands of sheep in the fields of Ireland, where she lived for a time. “There were so many of them, and you could tell there was a lot of personality behind them,” she said.
A book in which sheep are stirred to action had to be a mystery, she said, to motivate the main characters. “In a lot of other stories, you would have trouble making a sheep realize there’s a story there,” she said. “They would just keep grazing. But murder is an existential problem that speaks to sheep as well as humans.”
Swann (the name is a pseudonym; she has never publicly disclosed her real name) found a literary agent, Astrid Poppenhusen, who brought her manuscript to market. Published in 2005, the book was translated into 30 languages and ended up spending three and a half years on German best-seller lists. (The German title is “Glennkill,” after the village in which it takes place.) Other novels followed, including a sheep-centric sequel, “Big Bad Wool,” but Swann never finished her dissertation.
Doran, the producer, read the book — now published in the United States by Soho Press, along with four other Swann novels — soon after hearing about it. She was determined to make it into a movie. Whenever she told anyone about the idea, she said, she had them at “sheep.”
The director, Kyle Balda (whose credits include “Minions”), was so excited when he first read the script, in 2022, that “I immediately drove out to a sheep farm” near his house in Oregon, he said in a video interview. “Very instantly I could see the behavior of the sheep, their different personalities. I learned very quickly that there are more varieties of sheep than dogs.”
How to make the sheep look realistic, and how to strike the proper balance between their inherent sheep-iness and their human-esque emotions were important questions the filmmakers grappled with.
It was essential that “the sheep in this world are sheep” rather than humans in sheep’s clothing, Balda said. “It’s not the kind of story where they are partnered with humans and talking to each other.”
That means that like real sheep, the movie sheep have short attention spans. They’re afraid to cross the road. “They don’t drive cars; they don’t wear pants; they’re not joke characters saying things like, ‘This grass would taste better with a little ranch dressing,’” Doran said.
And whenever they speak, their words register to humans as bleating, the way the adult speech in “Peanuts” cartoons sounds like trombone-y gibberish to Charlie Brown and his friends.
Lily, the leader of the flock, is played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus. It is not her first time voicing an animal in a movie: She has played, among other creatures, an ant in “A Bug’s Life” and a horse in “Animal Farm.” “When I read the script, I thought, ‘Wow, this is so weird,’” she said in a video interview. “It’s not derivative of anything else.”
Lily is unquestionably not a person; among other things, like a real sheep, she has a relatively immobile face set off by lively ears. “But her journey is a human journey where she realizes certain things about life she didn’t understand,” Louis-Dreyfus said. “There’s also the question of being a leader, and how to do that when you’re questioning your own point of view.”
Nicholas Braun took easily to the role of Officer Tim, the inept constable charged with solving the shepherd’s murder.
“The part was a little Greg-adjacent in the beginning, and I don’t really want to play too many Gregs,” Braun said via video, referring to Cousin Greg, his hapless punching bag of a character in the TV drama “Succession.”
“I’m post-Greg,” he said.
It takes Officer Tim some time to notice that the neighborhood sheep might be actively helping him tackle the case. But Braun said that unlike Greg, who is stuck in perpetual ineptitude, Tim gets to grow into a braver and more assertive person, a take-charge romantic hero — much the way the sheep are forced into action from their default position of “just forgetting about it and moving on and going back to eating grass,” he said.
Braun mused for a bit about other potential animal detectives — horses, say, or cows — but concluded that the sheep in the film were just right for the job. He predicted that the movie would change people’s perception of sheep, much the way “Toy Story” made them “look at their toys, or their kids’ toys, differently.”
“I don’t think people are going to be eating as much lamb after this,” he said.,
-
Sports5 minutes agoLakers drop Game 3 to Thunder; now one loss from elimination
-
World17 minutes agoIran warns US against attacks on tankers; Israel kills dozens in Lebanon
-
News47 minutes agoBobby Cox, Hall of Fame manager of Atlanta Braves, dies at age 84
-
New York2 hours agoRail tickets to New Jersey World Cup matches will be $105, not $150.
-
Detroit, MI3 hours agoDetroit Tigers lose fifth straight, Kerry Carpenter injured
-
San Francisco, CA3 hours agoFallen tree downs powerlines in SF, delays Muni line
-
Dallas, TX3 hours agoFC Dallas vs Real Salt Lake: Lineup notes 📝
-
Miami, FL3 hours agoYour 2026 Miami Dolphins Draft Picks Expectations