8 Takeaways From MLB’s New Minor League Data Regulation Plan
Image credit: (Photo by Rich Schultz/Getty Images)
As first explained in a story by the Athletic, MLB is in the process of standardizing analytical data capture and distribution across MiLB and amateur baseball for MLB clubs.
For now, the plan is at the very beginning stages of what is likely to be a lengthy process. MLB has sent a memo to teams making them aware that this change will be coming. Many teams are currently in multi-year contracts with a variety of vendors, and MLB will be working to bring those agreements in house to MLB. That is expected to take quite a while.
But once these plans are implemented, MLB will become the data collector who deals with tech vendors. Statistical analysis, player tracking and biomechanical information and other data forms that haven’t even been invented yet will be collected by MLB. At that point, all 30 MLB clubs will have equal access to all of that data.
“We are taking this step to ensure that all 30 Clubs are working with the same set of information as they make Baseball Operations decisions. Each Club can use the information however they see fit, but it is important that we provide a level playing field on access to information. We aim to standardize the Baseball Operations technology used at various levels of the minor leagues to provide every Club the same set of data and video. The effect will be different by ballpark – some facilities will see additional tech installations while others will be unchanged or reduced. MLB will pay for and manage the technology,” said an MLB spokesperson.
After reporting on the details and potential ramifications of this development, Baseball America presents eight key takeaways to keep in mind.
1. MLB Statcast’s Data Is The Model
Going back to 2008, MLB has operated the pitch tracking and (when it was developed) the hit/player-tracking tech that operates in all 30 MLB stadiums. That data is gathered and distributed by the league. Each MLB club is free to use that data to analyze and evaluate players however it wants, but the datasets themselves are equal for all 30 clubs.
MLB’s plan is to do the same moving forward for MiLB and amateur data, with the league operating as the collector and distributor of this information. Each MLB team will have the freedom to use the data in whatever way they want, but the datasets themselves will be shared among all 30 clubs equally.
This could make MiLB tracking data more available publicly in the future, and it’s possible it will also become a larger part of MiLB broadcasts, much as Statcast insights are used in MLB broadcasts.
2. There Were Growing Worries About Exclusivity Deals
MLB teams have long battled for useful data, and have been known to spare little expense in attempting to garner exclusive information to gain a winning edge. Years ago, MLB adopted a regulation that prohibited MLB teams from paying for data-gathering devices (such as Trackman units for pitch-tracking and exit velocity measurements) for colleges in return for exclusive use of that data after some teams began to make those deals.
While those regulations remain, there were growing worries that an MLB club or clubs might figure out ways, either through exclusivity deals or pricing pressures, to ensure that they could get what amounted to exclusive access to, say, Cape Cod League or SEC video/data. There were other concerns about teams negotiating exclusive multi-year rights deals for new pieces of technology that offered significant competitive advantages.
MLB’s decision, driven by the Competition Committee, is to standardize data access and prevent these kinds of exclusivity deals in the future.
3. It Pushes Everyone Toward The Middle
The gulf between the Rockies’ tech suite and what the Dodgers are working with has grown dramatically in the past decade. While some fans may decry the disparity in MLB spending between the Dodgers and smaller-market clubs, the difference in tech at the MiLB/amateur level is just as dramatic.
For many MLB clubs, each new tech addition has had to compete against other potential new additions for limited resources. Adding new tech also generally means hiring staff to use the newly acquired information. Some teams are quite receptive to doing so. Others won’t adopt new tech/data until it becomes quite pervasive.
While MLB organizations have different departments battling to win budgetary battles each year, the Dodgers have often operated from an idea that any potentially great idea is worth pursuing, even going so far as to develop their own tech incubator a decade ago. Their Elysian Park ventures and part of Global Sports Venture Studio drives investment into new sports tech and other startups. For example, Synergy Sports, the video/scouting platform used by numerous MLB and college programs, started out under Elysian Park before being acquired by Sportradar.
Going forward, the Dodgers can still fund startups with their tech incubator, but they cannot use the tech itself unless everyone else is using it, too.
It is possible that some teams might eventually have to remove tech that they currently have installed, but it’s too early in the process to know when or if that will happen.
4. Innovation Could Be Slowed
Because of the large number of decision-makers in an MLB club who have to be involved with approving technology and other cutting-edge developments, many teams have lagged slightly behind colleges and top-notch training facilities in adopting the latest tech. At a college program, for example, if a head coach decides a new piece of tech will be beneficial, it’s just a matter of finding the funding for the addition.
With MLB teams, such a process often requires getting approval from multiple different departments. And if that piece of tech is useful for only one department, it may be competing for limited financial resources with additions desired by other departments.
Even so, the allure of getting a competitive advantage has long driven MLB teams to attempt to be early adopters even with those limitations.
The Jeff Luhnow-era Astros, for example, were often several years ahead of the average MLB organization in approving new tech, including ultra-high speed cameras. At one point, if you saw an Edgertronic camera operator at an amateur game, it was almost assuredly an Astros employee. Within a couple of years, almost every club was gathering high-speed video.
By standardizing the data across the sport, it will likely ensure that some of the next great ideas will be experimented with in college baseball and training facilities before being adopted by MLB teams.
MLB is likely to attempt to continually update what data it gathers, but the reality of decision making in larger organizations will ensure that it likely has to move at a slower pace than leaner/smaller organizations.
5. It Will Control Costs
By standardizing the tech suites across baseball, it will reduce team spending on new technology. In many cases, new tech has required six- or seven-figure outlays. The risk of falling behind has driven teams to contract with a variety of tech providers over the past 15 years. In some cases, those ideas have proven to be dead ends. But the rush to find an edge, or at least not fall behind, has led to plenty of spending.
By standardizing data sharing, the amount of money spent on new tech will decrease. But it will also create a system of have and have-nots for tech companies. When there are competing technologies (as there was for pitch tracking), being adopted by MLB will mean implementation at a massive scale for these companies. But it also could lead to haves and have-nots among competing tech vendors.
6. The Focus Is On On-Field Data
Off-field performance tracking/medical tech is not covered by this memo. If some company develops new vision-testing tech, cognitive brain testing or other off-field data-collecting processes, they will not be covered by this new arrangement.
7. Some Teams Need To Be Saved From Themselves
There is a competitive balance component to this decision. The driving force behind the move is thought to be MLB owners who want to limit/reduce spending at the MiLB level. That’s the same thought process that led to the reduction of MiLB teams in 2020-2021.
However, there is also the reality that there are teams that are falling further and further behind because those owners haven’t invested as much in expensive—but potentially significant—technology.
If MLB had not adopted Pitch FX/Trackman/Hawk-Eye across all MLB clubs, it likely would have changed the course of the past 15-plus years of the major leagues. Imagine a world where only some MLB clubs had access to pitch- and hit-tracking data.
It’s a point Driveline Baseball founder Kyle Boddy made today:”
With the rise of markerless motion capture and other biomechanical measurements, the gap between a team able to utilize insights that affect scouting/player development/player health and teams who aren’t even trying to compete in those areas could lead to potentially massive disparities in a sport where some teams’ fan bases already feel like they are without hope.
Going forward, MLB’s goal is to ensure that data access is equivalent for all 30 MLB teams.
8. This Won’t Put Everyone On The Same Playing Field
For as powerful as technology can be, it is still just a tool. Handing a torque wrench to a mechanic who doesn’t know how to use one won’t ensure a nut is torqued to the proper spec.
Teams that have smart people using these tools to develop new insights will continue to stay ahead of teams lacking the staff to properly process, evaluate and act on the data. Consider that teams vary widely in their ability to use the Hawk-Eye player-tracking data gathered and shared for all 30 MLB teams, and that’s data that has been pervasive for a decade or more.
By standardizing the data sharing, it will create incentives that almost require all 30 MLB teams to invest in people to analyze this data.
