Community Forum

So the MLB The Show team has expressed that they want the most realistic simulation possible. And I feel they have taken leaps and bounds with 25 and from what I’m seeing 26 is building on it which is always great to see. However there is one lingering issue when it comes to hitting that I feel needs to be addressed in 26 that was such an issue all year in 25. “Hard Hit Balls.”

In MLB The Show, “hard hit balls” (95+ mph exit velocity) frequently result in routine fly outs and weak pop ups. That becomes frustrating when 70%+ of my good swings are 95+ mph and still turn into outs.

I actually looked into the real-world data on exit velocity, and here’s what it shows:

Real MLB Data on 95+ MPH Exit Velocity:
• 95+ mph overall: Roughly 50% of balls hit 95+ mph become hits.
• 95–99 mph range: ~.337 batting average with strong extra-base hit rates.
• 100–109 mph range: Batting average jumps to over .550.
• 110+ mph range: Batting average exceeds .700, often near .745.
• A 1 mph difference (94 vs 95 mph) can significantly change outcomes (from ~.265 to over .300).
• Launch angle matters heavily — “barreled” balls (95+ mph with optimal launch angle) have an even higher success rate.

So when 95–105 mph balls in-game are consistently turning into lazy fly outs or line outs, it feels disconnected from real-life results. In real MLB data, balls hit that hard are extremely productive especially once you get into the 100+ mph range.

I completely understand that gameplay balance matters and by no means am I suggesting it would always be a hit or 90% of the time be a hit. Because I’m assuming yall have years of baseball knowledge as do it. Often you can do everything right but it just doesn’t land. I can understand “hard outs.” But if hard-hit balls are going to be labeled as such, their outcomes should reflect how impactful they are in real baseball.

Right now it feels like exit velocity isn’t being rewarded at a rate that matches real-world performance, which can make good input feel meaningless.

Would love to hear if others are seeing similar results.

To the San Diego Studio Development Team,

First, I want to say thank you for the continued work you put into MLB The Show each year. Road to the Show has incredible potential, and I believe there is a relatively simple update that could dramatically increase realism and replay value for MLB The Show 26.

Currently, most Road to the Show conversations (pregame talks, monthly reviews, call-ups, call-downs, performance meetings, etc.) follow a predictable pattern: a generic NPC delivers a scripted line, and the user selects one of three scripted responses. After playing multiple seasons, these interactions become repetitive and immersion begins to fade.

My proposal is not to redesign the system, but to expand it.

Instead of a single fixed line per scenario, imagine implementing a large bank of dialogue variations tied to each existing scripted situation. For example:

For a “call-up to MLB” scenario, instead of one coach line, there could be 1,000 randomized text variations that all convey the same outcome but with different tone, phrasing, and personality.

Likewise, for the player’s response options, each of the three selectable tones (confident, humble, cocky, etc.) could also pull from a pool of 1,000 possible variations.

This would mean:

The structure of the system stays the same.

The branching logic stays the same.

The progression mechanics stay the same.

Only the dialogue pool expands.

The result would be massive immersion gains. Players would no longer feel like they are replaying the same scripted career over and over. Every season would feel slightly different. Conversations with managers, teammates, and coaches would feel alive and unpredictable. The replay ability shoots through the roof because you never know what you’re going to get. And on top of all of this I think with y’all’s resources and team I do believe this is something can can be an update in MLB 26 The Show.

From a development standpoint, this seems highly achievable because:

No new gameplay systems are required.

No new animation systems are required.

No new UI systems are required.

This would primarily involve writing expansion, text integration, and light QA testing.

Depending on team size and workflow, this could potentially be implemented within one development sprint cycle. Realistically, a structured writing and integration phase could take approximately 4–8 weeks, including writing, editing, importing dialogue variants, and QA testing for text errors or mismatches. If staged gradually, it could even be rolled out incrementally by scenario category.

The return on immersion versus development cost appears extremely high.

Road to the Show is at its best when it feels like a living baseball world. Increasing dialogue variability alone could significantly elevate realism without requiring major engine changes.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I truly believe this is a small change that could make a major impact for players who invest hundreds of hours into their careers.

Respectfully,

Zane Moore