With a continuously-improving market for technology in player development, decision-makers are forced to make critical decisions on what equipment will provide the greatest return on investment. This has proven to be no simple task, with some clubs proving that technology alone does not improve player performance.
That being said, what should go into this decision-making process?
As a hypothetical, I have created a scenario where an organization is looking to make a $500,000 investment in player development technology. I have no idea if that is a realistic number, or not, but it seems reasonable to me. While the list of possible tech investments could go on and on, here are the pieces of tech “they” are considering for their first investment, along with their estimated utility(value, usefulness) and costs (Connor Hinchliffe did the hard work on putting these figures together here. I also took a complete guestimate at the cost of Hawkeye):
If you are interested in reading more about each technology, Connor did a great job breaking them down. The utility grades are based on both my own experience as well as input from others with direct experience. But to be clear, all of the utility grades are arbitrary.
For the sake of my hypothetical, this organization wants all of the following: maximize their total utility, remain under budget, have no more than two pieces of pitch flight tech with each of their 8 affiliated teams, no more than two high-speed cameras with each affiliate, a Motus Sleeve for every pitcher in the system (125), a bat sensor for every hitter in the system (125), and 5 Hittrax units across their farm system.
Under those constraints, what is the most optimal way for an organization to invest their $500,000?
Model say Hawkeye too expensive. This is better in some ways, because much like stadium Trackman (which I removed because most MiLB stadiums already have this), they cannot be utilized for a bullpen unless it is thrown on the field mound.
As I alluded to in the beginning, some teams are realizing that solely investing in tech is not enough. Many teams have created entry-level positions for hungry job-seekers to operate the tech and interpret the results. How do they factor into this investment?
The so-called “tech operators” do need to be valued a little bit differently than the tech itself. It might be tough to justify hiring five, while simultaneously cutting the number of portable Trackman units in half, and getting no Edgertronics. Keep in mind, this is just a hypothetical. But also keep in mind, they help free up some time and focus for coaches to add value elsewhere, or simultaneously, which is why I gave them such a high utility (think pitch design session where coach doesn’t have to worry about troubleshooting an Edgertronic). The operators are an annual cost, the tech is an upfront cost that depreciates over time. However, with improvements in tech growing at such a rapid pace, these investments may be almost as short-lived as a tech operator on a one-year contract. Just something to keep in mind.
Ways to Improve This
For starters, it would be useful to get an accurate budget, real constraints and a cost for Hawkeye. Adding in other tech would be great, as well, such as force plates, motion capture, K-Vests, vision training, pitching machines, you could even throw in software like Driveline TRAQ and pitchAI.
With in-house data, organizations could also get a more accurate measure of utility based on previous returns on tech investments. It would be impossible to assign player improvements directly to a piece of equipment, but something as simple as utilization rates could help with making more calculated investments. Why invest thousands of dollars in something if it is not being fully utilized or actually helping?
Comments