Not to put to fine of a point on some of Chief's earlier posts -
So clearly it's a feature dropped because they couldn't get it working. Wonder how much more of the game is in the too hard basket. Chief's comments on batting controls seem totally unredressed by the control scheme included.
On the second question, there's some different perspectives to take into account:
As a player, online isn't actually all that important to me personally, as there are very few console games that I actually play online (PES and Red Dead Redemption the only recent ones I can think of, and even those were generally with 3 or 4 of my close friends, and THEN only when there was a reason we couldn't do it in person...)
From a development point of view, being completely honest, it's *hugely* expensive and laborious to code and test, and frankly it's budget I'd MUCH rather be able to spend elsewhere, concentrating on making the best game possible. To add to that frustration we can track how many people actually play the game online, compared to how many buy it, and the figures speak for themselves: it's a very small fraction.
However, and here's the good news for you from what you've said, from a marketing and sales point of view the perception is that it is absolutely crucial: It's a expectation of the age and I can't imagine any scenario where anyone would entertain releasing a game (and definitely a sports game!) without it. People would see its absence as a huge minus if it was not there (and that would include reviews etc), even if what WAS there was a much better experience for its omission.
So clearly it's a feature dropped because they couldn't get it working. Wonder how much more of the game is in the too hard basket. Chief's comments on batting controls seem totally unredressed by the control scheme included.