Community Forum

This type of stuff happens all the time. I’ve seen logos of large breasted women that probably offend people, I’ve seen lots of teams using Trump’s name and slogans that probably offend people. Honestly, I bet the fact that your PSN tag glorifies organized crime probably offends someone. My advice is grow thicker skin and move on. Or just quit when you get offended since 95% of users use tasteful team names.

@x8114xmafiax_psn said in Thanks for making my decision easy SDS:

Was on the fence about preordering the game. But after what I just experienced, not only am I not preordering, I am not buying the game anymore.

I decided to try a BR game and matched up with a user that I reported, to SDS, MULTIPLE times for a racist team name and a vulgar logo.

But as usual; nothing has been done to this player. He STILL has the same racist team name and STILL has the same vulgar logo.

And to top it off; he know has a vulgar PSN ID, which has been reported to Sony.

Glad to see this company is on top of keeping trash and childish like behavior away from the game.

I'm sure you all can see whom I am referencing by checking my game history and seeing what I mean by his team name and ID.

However, it won't show his logo. So, even though this will get me banned, I don't care.

PSN ID: JTeatsass
Team Name: Cotton Pickers
Logo: A peni$ that is ejaculatingggg

Preorder is cancelled. Game will be deleted.

Maybe give position players a stamina meter? That could help force everyone to use more players.

@chestnuts20_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":

@hegone44_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":

@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":

@go4stros25_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":

Lol yankee fans "but but babe Ruth, but but but in 1920...."

Babe Ruth played 20 years before Jackie Robison broke the color barrier. The talent in the league today is unreal. Might be baseball blasphemy, but I wouldn't be shocked if babe Ruth was just a run of the mill DH in today's game.

Athletes in every sport have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster since we started tracking these things. Why would mlb pitchers be any different? I know there were probably a few guys back them that could probably hit the low 90s, but call me crazy. I just don't think the average pitcher, Whitey Willabe McGroover, fresh off the farm was bringing a 97+ to the plate like the majority of pitchers are today.

Ruth was the best of his time. He has left behind one of, if not the biggest, legacies in professional sports. That's his place. Can't compare players 100 years apart

And yet we have stats that do just that.

Yeah, but where the flaw lies in comparing across eras is that WAR uses stats compiled by an individual player and then weighs them across numerous factors. It cannot take into account the players who are missing. Nobody can argue that the 1920's weren't significantly inferior to the 1940's and 1950's let alone today. WAR actually does a very poor job comparing across eras, that's what things like ERA+ and OPS+ are for...but even those stats cannot take into account the overall quality of a league.

You don't understand WAR... WAR greatly benefits players that played in the past. The fact that Babe was the BEST of his time by far should hint that his WAR would be dramatically increased.

Here is a great breakdown on FG.

Actually I do understand it pretty well thank you, and this article made my point precisely. Before 1950, the league was nothing compared to its post-1950 counterpart. You cannot use WAR to compare across eras very well, because in the end it uses a player's statistics to come up with that number. And if those statistics are compiled against inferior competition there's no way to accurately account for that.

@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":

@go4stros25_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":

Lol yankee fans "but but babe Ruth, but but but in 1920...."

Babe Ruth played 20 years before Jackie Robison broke the color barrier. The talent in the league today is unreal. Might be baseball blasphemy, but I wouldn't be shocked if babe Ruth was just a run of the mill DH in today's game.

Athletes in every sport have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster since we started tracking these things. Why would mlb pitchers be any different? I know there were probably a few guys back them that could probably hit the low 90s, but call me crazy. I just don't think the average pitcher, Whitey Willabe McGroover, fresh off the farm was bringing a 97+ to the plate like the majority of pitchers are today.

Ruth was the best of his time. He has left behind one of, if not the biggest, legacies in professional sports. That's his place. Can't compare players 100 years apart

And yet we have stats that do just that.

Yeah, but where the flaw lies in comparing across eras is that WAR uses stats compiled by an individual player and then weighs them across numerous factors. It cannot take into account the players who are missing. Nobody can argue that the 1920's weren't significantly inferior to the 1940's and 1950's let alone today. WAR actually does a very poor job comparing across eras, that's what things like ERA+ and OPS+ are for...but even those stats cannot take into account the overall quality of a league.

I've been getting it pretty much whenever I open a pitcher's card.

Definitely a love-hate relationship with that stadium. Too many cheap homers for sure, but I also get far more perfect/perfect and good/good swings there because the batter's eye is great and for whatever reason the game seems to perform better at that stadium than any other. Honestly, on HOF hitting is so hard that it's not too bad. On all star it's pretty bad.

Neither system can run 144 hz, as the systems are designed with TVs in mind. The PS4 does 60hz, and the PS5 is capable of 120hz (though I don't believe this game is programmed for 120hz on PS5. What you really need to do is find a monitor with very low (below 10ms) input lag at either 1080p/4k @60hz (@120hz for future proofing). There are websites who test this (rtings.com comes to mind). The 75/144hz thing is more about motion resolution anyways, input lag &/or connection latency are what makes it difficult for us to hit fastballs.

Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Ted Williams, Eugenio Suarez off the top of my head have that swing.

I get as irritated as anyone with RNG stuff, but I'd say the pinpoint pitching is fantastic. I just think it's a little too easy to get perfect/perfect. I don't think people understand that pitching is a part of baseball with very little randomness involved, as opposed a hitting. I bet Greg Maddux would say that if his mechanics, release point, grip, etc all were exactly as he planned them to be in a given pitch that he could throw the ball where he wanted with his eyes closed. The way the game is now, more wild pitchers (Ryan, Feller, etc) won't throw the same "dot" on a perfect/perfect that Greg Maddux or Pedro Martinez do, and that's as it should be. Perfect/perfect for pitchers has the same effect that it does on hitters, with the exception that even when hitters square the ball up there are still fielders who could get in the way. That's not true of pitching - pitching is 100% pitcher execution.

Also, keep in mind we are all using prime versions of all-time great pitchers and/or overpowered prospects, all of whom would dominate our lineups if they executed the real-life versions of the "perfect/perfect" input on 95% of their pitches.

The biggest issue with the pitcher/hitter interface is by far the sinker I think. It tunnels with the curveball, because it goes up out of the pitcher's hand in the game and that's messed up. If they'd tunnel it with the fastball, like real life, then it wouldn't feel like we're hitting 100 mph curveballs.

Two things make it more effective, 1 is like real life the other is not:

1. The cutter has less top spin and is, therefore, thrown harder and with less movement BUT the movement generally happens later. A slider looks like a breaking ball because it breaks earlier.
2. In this game, the cutter for some reason looks a lot slower than it is. Hard to explain but it does. So having a nasty cutter in the game has the same effect as having a great change up with movement.

So the Wieters is a 96, so my pick for the sibling is Bret Boone.

I’ve seen more unhandled exception errors in ‘21 in 2 days than I’ve seen in the last 3 years.

@the_dragon1912 said in Lack of Left handed hitting catchers:

@hegone44 said in Lack of Left handed hitting catchers:

@the_dragon1912 said in Lack of Left handed hitting catchers:

@hegone44 said in Lack of Left handed hitting catchers:

The topic of this thread is why baseball folks have been saying that the most draftable profile in baseball, after LHP, is LHH Catcher. The fact that you're clamoring for Brian F'ing McCann is evidence enough that there haven't really been a lot of great catchers period, let alone ones who hit left-handed. The only one in my lifetime is Joe Mauer.

And the only other ones I can think of are McCann, Pierzynski, and Alex Avila since the mid 2000s. A lot of people hype up Mauer to be a lot better than he really was just because he was truly the only elite catcher in that era until Posey and Yadi came along. If Piazza and Pudge played 1B instead of Catcher neither of them would be in the HOF because of their alleged steroid use IMO. That's how weak the catcher position has been throughout the years

Mauer was a 3 time batting champ, and an MVP, before he started getting injured...and he could move, and had a cannon. He was far better than Posey or Molina, and I'd argue he was on a trajectory to be mentioned with the likes of Bench, Berra, and Pudge if it weren't for the injuries.

Based on that logic you must consider LeMahieu and Altuve among the top 2B of all time yes? Both have had very similar careers to Mauers(even if you completely disregard Altuve's 2017 season), at an equally weak position throughout history

I said he was on a hall of fame trajectory through 2010, and that's not even really debatable. At that time, Mauer had done the following:

1. 3 batting titles.
2. 1 MVP
3. .327 career batting average
4. 3 gold gloves, with a career CS% of .357, which is about 8% above league average...and led the league twice.

If Mauer had stayed healthy, there's really no debating the fact that he'd be headed to the hall of fame because he'd have 3000 hits, a .320+ career average (which would be 2nd all time among catchers).

Also, yes if Altuve gets himself back on track and maintains his current 162 game averages for the next 5-7 years then he will most definitely be one of the greatest 2B ever. DJ's peaking a little late.

@the_dragon1912 said in Lack of Left handed hitting catchers:

@hegone44 said in Lack of Left handed hitting catchers:

The topic of this thread is why baseball folks have been saying that the most draftable profile in baseball, after LHP, is LHH Catcher. The fact that you're clamoring for Brian F'ing McCann is evidence enough that there haven't really been a lot of great catchers period, let alone ones who hit left-handed. The only one in my lifetime is Joe Mauer.

And the only other ones I can think of are McCann, Pierzynski, and Alex Avila since the mid 2000s. A lot of people hype up Mauer to be a lot better than he really was just because he was truly the only elite catcher in that era until Posey and Yadi came along. If Piazza and Pudge played 1B instead of Catcher neither of them would be in the HOF because of their alleged steroid use IMO. That's how weak the catcher position has been throughout the years

Mauer was a 3 time batting champ, and an MVP, before he started getting injured...and he could move, and had a cannon. He was far better than Posey or Molina, and I'd argue he was on a trajectory to be mentioned with the likes of Bench, Berra, and Pudge if it weren't for the injuries.

The topic of this thread is why baseball folks have been saying that the most draftable profile in baseball, after LHP, is LHH Catcher. The fact that you're clamoring for Brian F'ing McCann is evidence enough that there haven't really been a lot of great catchers period, let alone ones who hit left-handed. The only one in my lifetime is Joe Mauer.

It can be defensed, so it’s fair.

Baseballs are white. That is all.

Don't like the DH for a couple reasons:

1. I think players should have to play the field to hit. If you want the benefit of Nelson Cruz's bat, then you need to live with his defense. Players don't get to be defense-only so I don't think you should be able to hit only.
2. Don't really care about the double switch stuff, but I think more the other way - there are pitchers who can hit, and they should be able to benefit from that skillset.

I guess I just don't like specialization, and no DH minimizes specialization in baseball, and forces players to be more well-rounded to produce.

@maurice91932 said in So Verlander’s attributes were changed, huh?:

@KILLERPRESENCE4 said in So Verlander’s attributes were changed, huh?:

@bwheel1977 said in So Verlander’s attributes were changed, huh?:

@KILLERPRESENCE4 said in So Verlander’s attributes were changed, huh?:

@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in So Verlander’s attributes were changed, huh?:

@KILLERPRESENCE4 said in So Verlander’s attributes were changed, huh?:

@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in So Verlander’s attributes were changed, huh?:

@KILLERPRESENCE4 said in So Verlander’s attributes were changed, huh?:

@maurice91932 said in So Verlander’s attributes were changed, huh?:

@KILLERPRESENCE4 said in So Verlander’s attributes were changed, huh?:

@maurice91932 said in So Verlander’s attributes were changed, huh?:

@KILLERPRESENCE4 said in So Verlander’s attributes were changed, huh?:

As for Musials speed, he played in ballparks that were much larger than what we see in today’s game. Many of these ballparks had enormous outfields (power ally’s that were 400 plus, center fields that were 450 plus. Yet the lines were 270. That was the beauty of these ballparks, how asymmetrical they were. So Musial just exploited the dimensions of many of these ballparks to his benefit. So quit whining about something as superfluous as Musials speed attribute.

All people can do is hurl insults and try to silence people from voicing legitimate criticisms by making appeals to some sort of macho idea of “not whining.” It isn’t whining to want to know how they came up with the speed attribute.

And by the way, Musial played half his games at Sportsman Park. That park was not big at all.

Go grunt on another thread, tough guy.

Tough guy??? Who the efff are you??? I didn’t make any threatening remarks and yet you respond like that. I simply pointed out facts and I never called anybody a name. Whether you want to believe the facts (ball parks during his era were larger and far more asymmetrical than current ones, that is a fact) is on you. How about you actually do your research before actually attacking others. And sportsman’s park was 420 to centerfield for your information. A slow catcher could get a triple to that part of the ballpark. So shut your whining mouth kid.

Now I’m scared. At first I thought you chose your own profile name but now I realize it was a title you have earned.

Lol.

Beat it, kid.

Yep that’s the response I expect from people like you. When others present facts to someone like you, you just try to yell over the top of them and call them names and continue screaming. Please cry some more while I laugh at the absolute absurdity of this troll post.

All the while you've dodged actual fact driven posts for the sake of carrying on some personal vendetta out of spite.

Presenting the use of facts, without actually presenting any, does not bode well for increasing the appearance of one's intelligence.

The hill you want to die on (Stadium Size) actually hurts your argument that Stan should be slower. All these legends older than Stan played in parks the same size or bigger

https://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/ballparks/crosley-field/

Here are some facts on classic ball parks. You’ll see that sizes of ball parks prior to the cookie cutters of the 70’s and 80’s and current stadiums pale in comparison. And due to the asymmetrical nature of these stadiums it made for some interesting hitting situations. The only stadium that has a comparable centerfield to many of the classic stadiums is Comerica in Detroit (420 to dead center) and AT&T in San Francisco (421 to triples ally right center field gap)

You're dense and I can see that. Let's take this slowly here. If Stan Musial has similar stats to Ruth, Gehrig,and Foxx while playing in similarly sized stadiums, how does Musial have 50 speed and the others are over 60?

I guess you have zero understanding of analytics so I will no longer respond to your ignorance. Have a nice day complaining about a video game that slights a player that you believe is some sort of sneaky speed demon. Lol

Musial was faster than babe and all those guys by quite a bit yet he is slower than babe and foxx in game. From what i can tell is that you are trying to compare it to today's players by comparing stadiums but musial isn't faster than today's players. I don't anyone thinks he is as fast as a mookie betts or a trout but again he is faster than ruth. His speed should be higher. How they figure old time guys speed is a mystery that probably should be explained.

There is no evidence to support their claim that Musial is in fact faster than the players they mention. Using stats from then to now is not evidence it’s anecdotal which by its nature is not evidence. I can make the claim that Gary Sheffield was pretty fast however his stolen base attempts don’t suggest this. Neither does his career doubles or triples also don’t support this claim hence the term anecdotal. We certainly can’t make a claim that Musial was faster than Babe as they didn’t play in the same era and I’m quite sure they never had a foot race. Sourcing stats like triples and doubles doesn’t make a quality argument. Maybe Babe didn’t try to stretch a double into a triple when he had the opportunity to or maybe he was instructed by his coaches to not try to do such things based on the team’s philosophy regarding this stuff. Or personal preferences. It’s just not a legitimate argument. I can only conclude that stadium size probably had a lot to do with Stans ability to leg out as many triples as he did. But it certainly doesn’t prove who was a faster player.

I don’t think you know what “anecdotal” means.

If I were to say, “Musial hit more triples than Babe Ruth, and therefore all players from the 1940s were faster than players in the 1920s,” that would be anecdotal evidence and therefore, not evidence to support the claim.

Comparing two or more players directly is not anecdotal. The distance between bases were the same in Ruth’s day as they were in Musial’s. They played in similar ballparks, or even smaller for Musial. It isn’t anecdotal. It’s a fair comparison and the stats don’t lie.

Without real measurements, it's difficult to really say. But...with the stats we do have, there is plenty of evidence that Stan Musial was really slow - and Ruth and Gehrig were both faster.

1. Triples aren't really a function of speed as much as they are of hitting ability - particularly in the era during which Musial played. No, his home stadium wasn't as big as some of the others of the time - but it was still huge (351 LF line, 379 LCF, 425 CF, 422 deep RCF...a little like Fenway..., 354 RCF, 310 RF line)...especially in left field. Maybe Stan drove the ball to left-center a lot? Parks like Forbes Field and Polo Grounds were 1/3 of his road games as well. Triples don't indicate speed under these conditions. Think of how frequently his massive number of gapped line-drives ended up at a fence 380 feet from home plate. That's why he hit so many triples...he also hit an insane amount of doubles for what that's worth.
2. Ruth and Gehrig both stole a lot more bases than Musial did.
3. He has a lot more triples because he has fewer homers. If you look at his stats, I kind of envision a DJ LeMahieu style hitter (hit a lot of homers because he can hit the ball hard, but mainly a line drive hitter) where as Ruth and Gehrig both hit a lot of homers.
4. Musial was an OF, who moved to 1B fairly early on in his career...and indicator that he wasn't fast.
5. Defensive range factor in the OF - Ruth is consistently at or slightly above average in the OF...and played the OF his whole career. Musial consistently below. Fast guys don't have bad range factors in the field.

I guess my point is there are at least some indicators that Gehrig and Ruth at least ran ok, but all indicators we have suggest that Musial was slow.

If you believe Fangraphs’ stats, Verlander was FB, SL, CB, CH in 2011...really his whole time in DET. He developed a cutter recently, while in HOU.