Community Forum

@RAisEdByGoAt_XBL said in Should we quit? Things are out of hand:

The new Kurtz vision is terrible. He clearly has great vision IRL.

I love Nick Kurtz, but he does strike out in over 30% of his at bats.

@SavageSteve74_PSN, I don’t mean to keep this thread alive, but just felt the need to acknowledge that yours was a thoughtful and well organized explanation.

I’d mentioned that I wasn’t an ardent supporter of a cap; having grown up an A’s fan in the East Bay and not having invested much time in looking into the issue as deeply as some, I was inclined to at least entertain the cap as a potential solution to flailing franchises… your response helped fill in some gaps for me with regard to the alternate perspective.

That’s going to give me some reading to do, now, but I appreciate the info and the way it was presented.

Cheers.

@yankblan_PSN, first, let's hope it doesn't come to that. It likely could, and that would be terrible for everyone... and though I doubt your ex-MLB barnstorming scenario would happen, sure, I'd pay for that for a bit, but that's not something sustainable or desirable for the players... $50 for all access takes 520,000 subscribers to pay Bryce Harper his current wage. Based on his recent behavior, I don't think he'd be too happy about taking less.

You're right that it's incredibly tough to buy a team in the first place, but you're wrong if you think the money just rolls in for everyone. Sure, there's no risk if you've tapped into the Yankees or another major franchise, but there is definitely risk for many others. Take a team like Detroit; Forbes does their annual piece on the business of baseball, looking at the financial health of each team, and they put the Tigers at a loss of $29M for 2023, with an opening day payroll of $105M. That's not a small amount of money to lose.

Can you think of any business where it's okay to take a loss because you're somehow obligated to in order to keep your fans happy? How many years can that be sustained?

In 2024, they scaled payroll back to about $95M, and they were $17M in the black. People yell about the owner being a cheapskate, and maybe he is, but where does that money ultimately go? The Tigers opened 2025 with a payroll of about $131M, and it's paying off for them, so far. That could very well net them a nice loss on the year if things go to [censored] in the second half and interest dries up, driving sales down, etc. There's definitely risk, there.

And while fans may not notice much in terms of ticket prices, paying a single player $15M is a big deal to the team when it means potentially losing $45M (since you were losing money already), or much more. I know fans feel like they're owed this for some amazingly self-absorbed reason, but, again, no other business would operate like that. Sports teams are owned by the rich, and rich people don't become rich by throwing away money in the tens of millions, let alone the amount some fans think they're "owed" by the owners of their favorite sports team.

Somebody said that a cap would limit what some teams can pay but does nothing to force others to pay more, but I don't think that completely grasps the situation; it doesn't force them, but if the Dodgers can only spend $225M instead of $320M, that might inspire other teams to increase their own spend. If a team can spend $150M and get enough talent to potentially compete and peak the interest of fans, they might be more willing to do so, when before, the big teams have already gobbled up all the talent with money they can't match, and the inflated player prices that trail these outrageous mega-deals wouldn't yield a competitive team anyway without some forced parity, so why throw that extra $50M down the drain to field a slightly better but still losing team?

That isn't good for the fans. But that's what at least half of us get.

Again, I'm not beating the drum for salary caps, but I'm not dismissing it without thought, either. This is not just a matter of greedy owners getting over on players. The players (at least their reps) are greedy [censored], too, and they don't care if fans ultimately suffer so long as they get to maximize their salaries.

@JenkinMeyer_PSN, you know what the Lama says!

@SaveFarris_PSN, maybe those new minimum wage workers are hungry, up-and-coming, chicken finger slingers... who's to say that the owner wouldn't see his store exceed sales projections because he resisted the calls for high priced labor?

@yankblan_PSN said in Bryce Harper:

the product is the talent, not the owner.

The product is not the talent. The product is baseball, and the talent are simply employees who deliver that experience to the fans. We as fans have sentimental attachments to those players, and may think we come just because of them, but if Bryce Harper and his $26M annual salary was replaced by Corbin Carroll and his $5.5M salary, the fans would still come if the club was winning. Harper and Carroll are just employees; fans come to experience Phillies baseball.

I agree with a lot of what you say, even that players should get a high percentage of revenue, and certainly that Manfred is not out to altruistically help the players, but those who put forth the capital and, thus, take the risk, are the ones who reap the biggest rewards. It doesn't matter that fans don't come to watch the owner.

@SaveFarris_PSN said in Bryce Harper:

If a random Raising Canes owner in South Carolina decides they're going to stop distributing Cane's sauce because they can save 0.2% on operating costs, Todd Graves absolutely has the power to revoke their business.

Your metaphor might work if this a discussion of how a team owner decided that he was going to use bright yellow softballs with brown stitches for home games instead of the regulation ball. But this isn't that.

If a Raising Canes owner in South Carolina doesn't want to pay his two best employees $20 an hour and instead chooses to replace them and staff his entire business with minimum wage workers, he has every right to do so and Todd Graves can't do a [censored] thing about it.

@SaveFarris_PSN said in Bryce Harper:

The Brewers are a Top 10 Payroll team? You sure?!?

The Cubs are. But, yes, I missed that the Brewers were tied with them with a quick glance. Let's see where they end up when the playoff picture settles out, and if things line up with highest spenders on top. Again.

Yes. If you're an owner and you can't afford to field a competitive team, you shouldn't be an owner.

That's a simpleton's take. But if you need to feel like you're an authority on the subject with your vast experience, you go right ahead.

@SaveFarris_PSN said in Bryce Harper:

@The_Joneser_PSN said in Bryce Harper:

Probably not the best time to make this argument, what with 2 of the best records in baseball currently siting in the Bottom 12 of payrolls (Mil, DET)

Yeah? And who's on top? All are top 10 payroll teams, save the Tigers... but every team in their division spends less.

Oh no, we’ve incentivized teams to spend money and try. THE HORROR!!
The owners are multi-billionaires. Every single owner can afford to put together a playoff roster every single year. If they don’t, they are [bodily function]-ing on the fans.
And if they really truly can’t afford a roster? They should be forced to sell to someone who will.

Is that the real problem, though? If you own a professional sports franchise, are your really obligated to spend yourself into oblivion when the major franchises can simply keep spending more? Wouldn't fans be less likely to be [censored] on if teams actually had to make decisions and the richest of the rich couldn't simply dump cash into the player market?

The delta between top and bottom payrolls in the NFL is next to nothing and thus irrelevant to MLB.

And why, do you suppose, is that?

As I said before, I'm not even necessarily a proponent of a salary cap; this is a complicated issue and no one in this forum is well versed enough to have an opinion that holds any weight. I was simply pointing out that your lists weren't exactly relevant to the matter at hand, and not at all the mic drop that you thought they were... unless you're really into straw man arguments.

Sorry that upsets you, little guy.

@yankblan_PSN said in Bryce Harper:

@PriorFir4383355_XBL it has nothing to do with the fact that you can’t keep (young) people’s attention for 162 games with half of them smack dab in the middle of tourist season? You think people who only consume 15 seconds clips on Tik Tok are intrigued by a hit and run? Baseball, as much as I love it, is an anachronism.

This makes me sad, but I think it's true.

I used to think that one of the most beautiful things to see while watching a baseball game was how, during a mound visit, the players would break in unison and return to position when the umpire was just feet from the mound... those little things are gone or going, and the inability of younger generations to sit through anything uncompressed (let alone sit still at all without reaching for their phones) may just be the death knell for baseball as we know it before too long...

And, yes, I yell at the clouds a lot.

@SaveFarris_PSN, I'm not exactly a proponent of a salary cap, but the fact that many different MLB teams have been represented in championships since 2000 is by no means proof that things are on par with other major sports. Nor is the fact that many "small market" teams have been represented.

The difference is this: if you aren't among the top payrolls in the game, you're going to need something of a miracle to win.

Yes, many different teams have won a world championship, but nearly all of those teams spent [censored] tons of money to do it. Since 1995 (wild card era), 26 of 29 world champions ranked in the top half of payrolls on opening day; 20 of those 29 ranked in the top 10. Of the three outside of that group of 26 to win championships in this era ('17 Astros, '15 Royals, '03 Marlins), two of them (Astros & Royals) made mid-season trades that put them into the top half of payroll by season's end.

Sure, small market teams can overspend and take a shot at glory, and then they have to tear down and remain in dismal straits for years... but they can't do it without entering that upper echelon of spending.

I don't think a cap is a panacea, but there's an argument for it that can't be discounted by listing how many different teams have won. Payroll rank is a better way of looking at that...

Consider that since the NFL implemented the cap, champions through 2023 broke down thusly (I didn't have easy access to the last 2 years and didn't care to spend the time): 12 champions ranked in the top 10 in cap spending, 9 champions were in the middle 10, and 8 winners were in the bottom 10.

That's very different than modern baseball.

@PAinPA_PSN, I think you guys are right; it's pretty close to a 98 just being issued... but that is pretty special.

Also agree that a 99 wouldn't be too much an improvement, since he just needs a little help on that Contact L, but I believe all the Ps in that game threw from the right side. As to value of the 98, it is still going to be part of the collection for the retro lightening, so will lose or hold value relative to the release of the completing cards, regardless of who they are.

Fun to watch these guys as an A's fan... haven't had bright spots for a while, now.

@dbub_PSN, you started it off with negativity. And you were wrong, but decided to bag on others anyway.

@KnoxLuvzMlb_XBL, maybe that's one loss for everyone you would have beaten at 800-899 because you tanked on purpose to play people below your skill level. Must be the new karma system...

Some people just love to complain... never mind the fact that Manny did not have dreads in the 2003 season, the very season represented by the new card... let's talk some [censored], everyone.

https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/sports/mlb/2013/03/12/manny-ramirez-through-the-years/1981275/

@Ditka06_MLBTS said

5 almost perfect timing and pci placement line drive outs. Not perfects but about as close as they can be to perfects.

Oh my god.

@Teak2112_MLBTS said in Getting the Rules Right:

Maybe hitters have the advantage at WS+, but that's not true for all skill levels.

Hmm... I disagree. At which level do hitters not have the advantage? You seem to be implying that this is the case with higher skill levels? If anything, things even out a little as you climb the ladder; in general, it's harder to score on higher levels, so things start to even out a bit, there... lower levels are all offense, all the time.

Keep in mind that pitchers get an edge by having way more accuracy than they should with pinpoint.

Again, I disagree. If you're forced to pitch too far into the zone to get a strike, that's an advantage to the hitter. And the ability to preternaturally foul off nearly anything negates any advantage accuracy would give.

Also zone is not the only hitting style in the game and timing would 100% need coding changes.

Hitting interface is irrelevant when the batter doesn't swing. I'm talking about called strikes.

Maybe if they made the change for HoF+?

No. That's a pretty basic rule. A strike is a strike, and you don't make the game easier by ignoring the basic rules of gameplay.

While I understand that people love flipping bats and trotting around the bases, I think things have tipped far too much toward the offensive side of things when one of the most basic, straight-forward rules in the real game is ignored in order to hand hitters another advantage. There is no reason, save for making it easier to hit, that a ball travelling through any part of the strike zone is not called a strike. It's a conscious decision, and it's a bad one.

Unlike many of the suggestions for "improving" the game, this fix should be quite simple; it wouldn't require any changes to the hitting engine mid-cycle, and it wouldn't even require adjustments to timing windows, placement, and the interplay of attributes to determine when a batter makes contact or not (though I agree with the sentiment that there are far too many foul balls, that may be a matter better addressed for next year's game as it would likely require major coding changes).

If batted balls that hit the foul poles were called foul instead of HRs because less than 50% of the ball made contact with the pole, people would lose their minds and the issue would be fixed in a matter of days. That is far too simple a rule to get wrong, and so is this: if any part of a pitched ball passes through any part of the strike zone, it's a strike. It's no less important just because most people care more about hitting. They'll adjust.

I like this game, and I enjoy playing it very much. I would enjoy it even more if it accurately reflected the rules, particularly when getting this one wrong means more chances for batters to capitalize when the odds of success are already heavily tilted in their favor.

Pretty, pretty please... can this be made right, sooner rather than later?

Just speculation on my part, because I fell short of it myself, but if you hit 800 through Weekend Classic, do they give you a badge? I was thinking this is the case, because not only are there more, they're easier to beat.

@RAisEdByGoAt_XBL said in Plz fix the gameplay:

@GoozeFn_PSN I don’t think it’s just how he “feels” … watch any streamer or listen to us on here the hitting engine is off.

So it's not just how he feels... it's how he and some other people feel.

Let's have some data.