MLB wants to limit spending for teams on non players??!?

[btdart20]

19 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Why do they matter?  If New York is spending twice as much as we do on analytics and technology, it doesn’t help us that their revenues are 3 times as high and their payroll is 4 times as high.  

They are benchmarks like any other ratio.  Nothing more.

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

I'm not sure why you say it's not big market vs. small market.

 

What did I say that wasn't clear?

What I heard (and it might be incorrect, I can't vouch for the source) is that a small number of teams that don't pursue analytic research are the ones pushing for this.  The Rockies in particular were mentioned.

You have large market teams like the Yankees and Dodgers that want to spend as much they can on it and you have small market teams like the Orioles and Rays that feel that spending on this is essential.  There is no real divide between large and small markets on the issue that I can see.

 

[owknows]

Welcome to the first meeting of the All Volunteer Oriole Hangout Analytics and free Statistical Service.

Members Only.

[24fps]

I was able to gain access to the Athletic article and as near as I can tell this is nothing more than a Rob Manfred sponsored MLB circle jerk.  Following are two quotes:
 

Quote

 

A league spokesperson said MLB’s focus has been on technology vendors, rather than staffing.

“There is nothing happening on that front,” the spokesperson said. “What we are focused on is gathering information on vendor costs to find potential cost savings through efficiencies and to ensure equal access to all technology.”

 

This quote has zero meaning if one gives the speaker the benefit of the doubt and assumes that English is being spoken.
 

Quote

 

If MLB does eventually try to restrict employee spending in some capacity, the league almost certainly would be leveraging the benefit of the sport’s antitrust exemption. The 30 teams likely would be collectively deciding not to compete with each other, in some way, in their hiring practices.

That would create some risk for the league. Leveraging the exemption in a new way could bring new legal challenges to the exemption, or increased scrutiny from Congress.

 

This is considerably more meaningful insofar as it identifies a substantial barrier to any real action being taken.  IMO it is a deal-killer.  As near as I can tell, ownership is scratching around for yet more ways to minimize costs at the expense of actual competitiveness in an environment where genuine parity is ultimately impossible.

[SilverRocket]

Here's a thread on how it might be reasonable:

He makes this comparison to PITCHfx and Trackman:

If this is just about extending the same league-wide sharing to the next set of technologies, that seems fine and would reduce inefficiencies of every club doing the same work. The details matter here but we're not entirely sure what they all are.

[Alasdaire]

Football has the absolute inverse system to this, a salary cap on players but not coaches/facilities, and it's a good system.

Take the Ravens, a small-market team but a very competent one. They're able to compete every year because they're not just plain outspent on free agents by bigger cities. And even though they're "punished" by the cap in that they're not allowed to pay all of the players they develop, they can retain their edge because the owner is permitted to pay Eric DeCosta to be the GM-in-waiting and upgrade the practice facilities since that's within reach for all franchises.

Baseball would have it that the small-market teams not only can't compete for free agents, but also that they can't take the money they do have and divert it as they see fit to areas where the dollar goes further. Oh and then they'll stick said small-market teams in a division with multiple big-market teams. Very fun.

 

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

What did I say that wasn't clear?

What I heard (and it might be incorrect, I can't vouch for the source) is that a small number of teams that don't pursue analytic research are the ones pushing for this.  The Rockies in particular were mentioned.

You have large market teams like the Yankees and Dodgers that want to spend as much they can on it and you have small market teams like the Orioles and Rays that feel that spending on this is essential.  There is no real divide between large and small markets on the issue that I can see.

 

But aren't the teams that don't spend much on analytics low-revenue teams or mid-revenue teams like the Rockies? Are there high-revenue teams that don't spend a lot on that stuff? Obviously, no outsider really knows, but I didn't think there were teams like that -- most owners and GMs are too smart not to spend money on things that will help if the team/owner has the money to spend. The Rays may be a bit of an outlier in that they are reputed to spend heavily on analytics -- they can do that because they spend so little on everything else.

[Can_of_corn]

2 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

But aren't the teams that don't spend much on analytics low-revenue teams or mid-revenue teams like the Rockies? Are there high-revenue teams that don't spend a lot on that stuff? Obviously, no outsider really knows, but I didn't think there were teams like that -- most owners and GMs are too smart not to spend money on things that will help if the team/owner has the money to spend. The Rays may be a bit of an outlier in that they are reputed to spend heavily on analytics -- they can do that because they spend so little on everything else.

I've heard the White Sox don't and they are in a large market.

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I've heard the White Sox don't and they are in a large market.

The White Sox are an illustration of why market size is not (in my opinion) the determining criterion for assessing a team's ability to spend money. Yes, it's a major market, but they're clearly the #2 team in that market (especially the moneyed segment of it), play in a blah ballpark that's reportedly not aging well, and are blocked by other teams from geographically expanding their fan base. In 2022, it was reported that the Sox were 24th in revenues, between the Royals and Pirates, so apparently a low-revenue team in a major market. Still, hard to understand why they'd chintz on analytics.

https://www.totalsportal.com/list/mlb-teams-with-highest-revenue/

 

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, spiritof66 said:

The White Sox are an illustration of why market size is not (in my opinion) the determining criterion for assessing a team's ability to spend money. Yes, it's a major market, but they're clearly the #2 team in that market (especially the moneyed segment of it), play in a blah ballpark that's reportedly not aging well, and are blocked by other teams from geographically expanding their fan base. In 2022, it was reported that the Sox were 24th in revenues, between the Royals and Pirates, so apparently a low-revenue team in a major market. Still, hard to understand why they'd chintz on analytics.

https://www.totalsportal.com/list/mlb-teams-with-highest-revenue/

 

Have you looked at the owner?

Who was the manager last season?

[spiritof66]

I would think the manager is not too relevant. The GM looks pretty capable. Maybe it's a shot called by the owner.

[SemperFi]

10 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

It’s almost as if MLB doesn’t like that so Many smaller market teams are succeeding.

Smaller markets succeeding unfortunately isn't in the best interest of MLB.

[SemperFi]

6 hours ago, Alasdaire said:

Football has the absolute inverse system to this, a salary cap on players but not coaches/facilities, and it's a good system.

Take the Ravens, a small-market team but a very competent one. They're able to compete every year because they're not just plain outspent on free agents by bigger cities. And even though they're "punished" by the cap in that they're not allowed to pay all of the players they develop, they can retain their edge because the owner is permitted to pay Eric DeCosta to be the GM-in-waiting and upgrade the practice facilities since that's within reach for all franchises.

Baseball would have it that the small-market teams not only can't compete for free agents, but also that they can't take the money they do have and divert it as they see fit to areas where the dollar goes further. Oh and then they'll stick said small-market teams in a division with multiple big-market teams. Very fun.

 

The main difference between the NFL and MLB is the stregnth of the MLPA.  The union will never accept a cap, one of their strategies is to drive up salaries by free agent signings (largely by large market teams) setting market price and creating essentially a "trickle down" effect.  It has been extremely successful. 

[Can_of_corn]

3 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

The White Sox are an illustration of why market size is not (in my opinion) the determining criterion for assessing a team's ability to spend money.

 

 

So since the White Sox do a poor job of leveraging their market they shouldn't be grouped into the teams that have a large market and can leverage it?

[FlipTheBird]

2 hours ago, SemperFi said:

Smaller markets succeeding unfortunately isn't in the best interest of MLB.

I do not feel this is some sort of anti-small market conspiracy. And given what we know of the owners, it’s absolutely not an attempt by MLB to get teams to spend less on tech and more on players.

All signs point to some of the league’s power brokers basically not wanting to have to pay for R&D, and griping that other teams do. Cutting expenses at all costs.