MLB to regulate MiLB data and sharing

[southsider2k5]

Seems like all of the sudden, everything is coming up Millhouse for the White Sox.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6879487/2025/12/15/mlb-technology-change-minor-leagues/?campaign=15965976&source=athletic_thewindup_newsletter&userId=6062851

[WestEddy]

37 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Seems like all of the sudden, everything is coming up Millhouse for the White Sox.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6879487/2025/12/15/mlb-technology-change-minor-leagues/?campaign=15965976&source=athletic_thewindup_newsletter&userId=6062851

What, does this mean that the league now has its hand out for vendors to get approval? 

[southsider2k5]

4 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

What, does this mean that the league now has its hand out for vendors to get approval? 

Only MLB approved vendors can be used.  In theory, teams that have more, or different, products, could/would be asked to remove them.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

44 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Seems like all of the sudden, everything is coming up Millhouse for the White Sox.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6879487/2025/12/15/mlb-technology-change-minor-leagues/?campaign=15965976&source=athletic_thewindup_newsletter&userId=6062851

Limiting data actually still gives a huge advantage to teams at the top. While it limits their ability to find novel proprietary data, what it does is allows them to benefit more greatly from their internal talent. 

Most novel ideas and data are snuffed out in under a year in athletics before everyone is copying. Now the unique findings will be harder to discover as they'll be deriving from the same data set as the Sox can use, but the Sox will have less internal talent to find their own unique value. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

12 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

What, does this mean that the league now has its hand out for vendors to get approval? 

There's a lot of really good reasons for normalizing tech and data accumulation in athletics. One of those reasons being privacy and reducing overall liability for the league and franchises. The other reason is promoting competition through the means of leveler playing field where performance is improved by your internal team and not third party vendor agreements whom the league has no control over which is a big risk.

[h. jones]

The cost for internal team performance personnel goes up now - if the only advantage you can wring out of the same sets of data is the quality of people working with it, those people can command more $ for their expertise. Same thing if they ever eventually set a max on number of analytics people per-team. Constraining supply doesn't constrain demand, it just makes the supply more expensive.

[almagest]

Teams are still going to try out new vendors and compile data from them on the down low. This will only stop the teams who are not creative enough to hide their unapproved tech.

[chitownsportsfan]

Agnostic about the change myself. It might stifle some innovation but foster more competition and then innovation.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

46 minutes ago, almagest said:

Teams are still going to try out new vendors and compile data from them on the down low. This will only stop the teams who are not creative enough to hide their unapproved tech.

If there are actual penalties for this, and defined bylaws within the MLB organization, any third party vendor who circumvented those would be liable for the agreements just as much as the team would be. 

No smart or viable vendor would risk their company to do under-the-table deals with individual teams. 

[WestEddy]

Now that MLB will be regulating all MiLB data, I think this paves the way for Statcast across the entire minor leagues. https://t.co/nuK5qkyxkX

— Kareem Haq (@KareemSSN) December 15, 2025

[almagest]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

If there are actual penalties for this, and defined bylaws within the MLB organization, any third party vendor who circumvented those would be liable for the agreements just as much as the team would be. 

No smart or viable vendor would risk their company to do under-the-table deals with individual teams. 

Depends on how severe MLB makes any penalties, how closely they watch, and if they actually enforce any big time penalties. My guess is lots of lip service but not a lot of actual teeth behind any enforcement.

Also, if it's relatively easy and smooth to get approved as a vendor then you'll limit the number of back-alley deals. If its a bureaucratic nightmare (which it almost certainly will be), then you'll absolutely see tiny startups with interesting data/approaches take a shot with a team if offered.

 

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, almagest said:

Depends on how severe MLB makes any penalties, how closely they watch, and if they actually enforce any big time penalties. My guess is lots of lip service but not a lot of actual teeth behind any enforcement.

Also, if it's relatively easy and smooth to get approved as a vendor then you'll limit the number of back-alley deals. If its a bureaucratic nightmare (which it almost certainly will be), then you'll absolutely see tiny startups with interesting data/approaches take a shot with a team if offered.

 

This screams an excuse for the Rickets and Reinsdorf's of the world to keep underspending where ever they can, while the Dodgers of the world do what they do, and just hide it better.  It kind of reminds me of "recommended slots" in the draft where about 20 teams were blowing those away, and youknowwho was sticking to it.

[almagest]

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

This screams an excuse for the Rickets and Reinsdorf's of the world to keep underspending where ever they can, while the Dodgers of the world do what they do, and just hide it better.  It kind of reminds me of "recommended slots" in the draft where about 20 teams were blowing those away, and youknowwho was sticking to it.

Yup. All of these rules exist to be broken. Some teams are better at it than others, and some teams stick to the letter of the law to their detriment (but moral sense of superiority I'm sure). 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, almagest said:

Depends on how severe MLB makes any penalties, how closely they watch, and if they actually enforce any big time penalties. My guess is lots of lip service but not a lot of actual teeth behind any enforcement.

Also, if it's relatively easy and smooth to get approved as a vendor then you'll limit the number of back-alley deals. If its a bureaucratic nightmare (which it almost certainly will be), then you'll absolutely see tiny startups with interesting data/approaches take a shot with a team if offered.

 

There is no reason to institute this if you aren't going to take it seriously. Do you think teams are currently cheating and using proprietary technology to gather data/measurements at the MLB level? I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it's very unlikely and these rules already exist there. 

NBA and NFL have approved data partners and approved technologies as well. As we've seen with the Kawhi Leonard situation, an approved vendor doesn't mean a reputable one, but I would guess it's much less likely than not that teams will circumvent the rules and use unapproved technology or partners. Especially when the gains you derive from it will be so marginal. Now.... where there's money, there's rule stretching but in this case it seems pretty unlikely that teams will be signing contracts with non-approved vendors.

Your second point doesn't align at all with any governance or controls at any reputable organization. Third party organizations, with any credibility, won't circumvent enterprise-wide rules and make back alley deals. And a start-up that did would quickly be a failing organization.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

37 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

This screams an excuse for the Rickets and Reinsdorf's of the world to keep underspending where ever they can, while the Dodgers of the world do what they do, and just hide it better.  It kind of reminds me of "recommended slots" in the draft where about 20 teams were blowing those away, and youknowwho was sticking to it.

I'm not sure what the obsession is with this free-market philosophy in baseball. Of course technology and data should be normalized, and teams should be forced to compete on the same grounds. That is how it is in every other major sport in the world. This idea that money should buy infinite edge is bad for competitive balance in athletics. Pretending that Reinsdorf has the same resources as Guggenheim is laughable, and I love to hate on Jerry as much as the next guy.

The fact is that some brands will always have greater value and market share (Yankees, Dodgers) and that brand equity shouldn't generate a competitive advantage for their clubs. It's bad enough the sport has no salary cap or floor, but add in all those other little edges and you see competitive balance deteriorate. 

[southsider2k5]

21 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I'm not sure what the obsession is with this free-market philosophy in baseball. Of course technology and data should be normalized, and teams should be forced to compete on the same grounds. That is how it is in every other major sport in the world. This idea that money should buy infinite edge is bad for competitive balance in athletics. Pretending that Reinsdorf has the same resources as Guggenheim is laughable, and I love to hate on Jerry as much as the next guy.

The fact is that some brands will always have greater value and market share (Yankees, Dodgers) and that brand equity shouldn't generate a competitive advantage for their clubs. It's bad enough the sport has no salary cap or floor, but add in all those other little edges and you see competitive balance deteriorate. 

Poor Jerry can't keep up with all of the other Billionaire's isn't much of a selling point for me.  I guess it is good that the teams who are willing to be out ahead of everyone else face more obstacles for the fan of a team that doesn't give a crap.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Poor Jerry can't keep up with all of the other Billionaire's isn't much of a selling point for me.  I guess it is good that the teams who are willing to be out ahead of everyone else face more obstacles for the fan of a team that doesn't give a crap.

LOL, Mark Walter alone is worth 6 times more than Jerry Reinsdorf. The fund itself manages almost 400 billion in assets. Jerry could afford to field a much more competitive team than he does, and the White Sox could make much more money than they do, but in no world could Jerry Reinsdorf compete financially with the Guggenheim fund if there are n restrictions in place. 

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

LOL, Mark Walter alone is worth 6 times more than Jerry Reinsdorf. The fund itself manages almost 400 billion in assets. Jerry could afford to field a much more competitive team than he does, and the White Sox could make much more money than they do, but in no world could Jerry Reinsdorf compete financially with the Guggenheim fund if there are n restrictions in place. 

Please.

These guys aren't solving climate change or building AI models.  They are funding baseball teams.  I am not interested in excuses for Jerry.

[caulfield12]

46 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I'm not sure what the obsession is with this free-market philosophy in baseball. Of course technology and data should be normalized, and teams should be forced to compete on the same grounds. That is how it is in every other major sport in the world. This idea that money should buy infinite edge is bad for competitive balance in athletics. Pretending that Reinsdorf has the same resources as Guggenheim is laughable, and I love to hate on Jerry as much as the next guy.

The fact is that some brands will always have greater value and market share (Yankees, Dodgers) and that brand equity shouldn't generate a competitive advantage for their clubs. It's bad enough the sport has no salary cap or floor, but add in all those other little edges and you see competitive balance deteriorate. 

Not to mention Ohtani Matsumoto and Ohtani are responsible for sonewhere in the vicinity of $150-250 million in revenues generated in various forms in SoCal and especially through Japanese corporate partners/advertisers.

Almost the same number of Japanese were watching LA on a Sunday morning for Game 7 of the WS in a much smaller country than Americans watching on a weekend night.

And the same advantage is accruing to Toronto as "Canada's team," just on a slightly smaller scale (Rogers is a massive national corporation) that puts them on equal footing with the Yankees and ahead of Boston/Balt.

All these resources have also led to a perennial Top 2-3 farm system...where they have 3-5 replacements for every position with the exception of closer, which was addressed with Edwin Diaz after Sasaki made it through the playoffs (barely).  

Edited 14 hours ago by caulfield12

[almagest]

21 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

There is no reason to institute this if you aren't going to take it seriously. Do you think teams are currently cheating and using proprietary technology to gather data/measurements at the MLB level? I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it's very unlikely and these rules already exist there. 

NBA and NFL have approved data partners and approved technologies as well. As we've seen with the Kawhi Leonard situation, an approved vendor doesn't mean a reputable one, but I would guess it's much less likely than not that teams will circumvent the rules and use unapproved technology or partners. Especially when the gains you derive from it will be so marginal. Now.... where there's money, there's rule stretching but in this case it seems pretty unlikely that teams will be signing contracts with non-approved vendors.

Your second point doesn't align at all with any governance or controls at any reputable organization. Third party organizations, with any credibility, won't circumvent enterprise-wide rules and make back alley deals. And a start-up that did would quickly be a failing organization.

Teams cheat with organizational backing all the time - we saw two huge scandals with the Astros and Red Sox in the last 7-8 years, and there have been rumors about a bunch of others. You've also said it yourself - advantages are often small and very difficult to come by, so there's a ton of pressure to seek them wherever you can, even if it's in an area that's technically "cheating" (like relatively sophisticated sign stealing).

If someone out there is doing something interesting with data or analytics but they're not approved by MLB, I guarantee a team is still going to talk to them and figure out a way to leverage that data to see if it's useful. I'm sure they're doing it in other sports, too, though we don't ever hear about it - you can't wear unapproved wearables during a game in the NBA, for example, but who knows what they're doing at practice during simulated games. That data over the course of a full season's worth of practices is going to have some value.

This is well beyond the scope of this discussion, but governance and controls for "back alley deals" and other similar violations fail ALL THE TIME in enterprise organizations. It's so common that questions about what to do if you find yourself in this situation are part of every security and compliance training.

[almagest]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I'm not sure what the obsession is with this free-market philosophy in baseball. Of course technology and data should be normalized, and teams should be forced to compete on the same grounds. That is how it is in every other major sport in the world. This idea that money should buy infinite edge is bad for competitive balance in athletics. Pretending that Reinsdorf has the same resources as Guggenheim is laughable, and I love to hate on Jerry as much as the next guy.

The fact is that some brands will always have greater value and market share (Yankees, Dodgers) and that brand equity shouldn't generate a competitive advantage for their clubs. It's bad enough the sport has no salary cap or floor, but add in all those other little edges and you see competitive balance deteriorate. 

Sports with a salary cap still have a collection of consistently hopeless teams and a collection of consistently good teams. You don't solve for parity by restricting spending.

Teams hire cap wizards and test all sorts of other tactics to navigate those restrictions. The salary cap is seldom an issue for good NFL teams if they want to keep a player or sign one. The NBA has been a super team league for most of the years since the mid 80s when they instituted a soft cap - if teams want to sign or trade for someone, they will. I think only one trade was ever vetoed by the commissioner's office. Baseball has the luxury tax, but smart teams are deferring money to work around that. All a hard cap would do is change how the Dodgers structure contracts to sign or trade for whoever they want.

 

[caulfield12]

7 minutes ago, almagest said:

Sports with a salary cap still have a collection of consistently hopeless teams and a collection of consistently good teams. You don't solve for parity by restricting spending.

Teams hire cap wizards and test all sorts of other tactics to navigate those restrictions. The salary cap is seldom an issue for good NFL teams if they want to keep a player or sign one. The NBA has been a super team league for most of the years since the mid 80s when they instituted a soft cap - if teams want to sign or trade for someone, they will. I think only one trade was ever vetoed by the commissioner's office. Baseball has the luxury tax, but smart teams are deferring money to work around that. All a hard cap would do is change how the Dodgers structure contracts to sign or trade for whoever they want.

 

Jets Saints Browns NY Giants TN AZ  Washington Cincy

Two NY teams that are constant doormats, Washington was in the playoffs last year with Daniels and Burrow/Chase two of the most recognizable stars in the game.  You don't have the equivalent unless you think Nats are really = Commanders. You also don't have two superstars long term in the NFL equivalent of Pitt Cincy KC in MLB.

Well, Bobby Witt Jr. might be the one singular exception.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 hours ago, almagest said:

Sports with a salary cap still have a collection of consistently hopeless teams and a collection of consistently good teams. You don't solve for parity by restricting spending.

Teams hire cap wizards and test all sorts of other tactics to navigate those restrictions. The salary cap is seldom an issue for good NFL teams if they want to keep a player or sign one. The NBA has been a super team league for most of the years since the mid 80s when they instituted a soft cap - if teams want to sign or trade for someone, they will. I think only one trade was ever vetoed by the commissioner's office. Baseball has the luxury tax, but smart teams are deferring money to work around that. All a hard cap would do is change how the Dodgers structure contracts to sign or trade for whoever they want.

 

None of these sports are remotely close to baseball. Those things you listed are all within the rules that everyone abides by. Theyre all accessible at fair market prices. 

I'm not sure what you or ss2k are arguing. Baseball has a significant parity problem that is exasperated by the inequality throughout the sport. I have no idea why any fan would want the richest ownership group to have the advantage. The richest owners will always live in one or two cities.

The green bay packers are one of the most successful organizations in the NFL and you think the NFL and MLB are similar in that regard. 

[caulfield12]

Nobody believes the Brewers Guardians or Rays could actually win it all...but TB did come relatively close.

The problem comes when fans in too many cities believe they have no shot at all before Opening Day.

Ofc fans in Seattle and Toronto and maybe even Detroit (for now) believe they're "right there."

 

And the example of Oklahoma City in the NBA...even though the Indiana and Milwaukee small market success stories usually don't hold up for long.  Namely, it's star players hitting FA.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 hours ago, almagest said:

Teams cheat with organizational backing all the time - we saw two huge scandals with the Astros and Red Sox in the last 7-8 years, and there have been rumors about a bunch of others. You've also said it yourself - advantages are often small and very difficult to come by, so there's a ton of pressure to seek them wherever you can, even if it's in an area that's technically "cheating" (like relatively sophisticated sign stealing).

If someone out there is doing something interesting with data or analytics but they're not approved by MLB, I guarantee a team is still going to talk to them and figure out a way to leverage that data to see if it's useful. I'm sure they're doing it in other sports, too, though we don't ever hear about it - you can't wear unapproved wearables during a game in the NBA, for example, but who knows what they're doing at practice during simulated games. That data over the course of a full season's worth of practices is going to have some value.

This is well beyond the scope of this discussion, but governance and controls for "back alley deals" and other similar violations fail ALL THE TIME in enterprise organizations. It's so common that questions about what to do if you find yourself in this situation are part of every security and compliance training.

Those two scandals involved teams cheating internally, not cheating with another legal business entity that knowingly goes into an agreement with a team against the bylaws of the league. "Interesting in analytics" lol. 

"People fail governance all the time so I guarantee an MLB team will" is not really something I agree with, but then again you guaranteed it so this discussion rests.