Recognition of the game situation in baseball

Yasuhiro Hashimoto; Hiroshi Takahashi; Hiromu Nagaura; Shinji Yoshitake; Hiroki Nakata

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0309328

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 4, 2024
24 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Nick Fogt, Editor PONE-D-24-17774Recognition of the game situation in baseballPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hasimoto, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 08 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Nick Fogt Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20K19500.]. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please expand the acronym “JSPS” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full. This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Two reviewers have assessed the paper. While both reviews were generally positive, there is concern over the very narrow scope of the situation assessed in the paper. Please address the potential (or lack thereof) for obtaining different results depending on the situation (eg. inning and score) in the game. Reviewer #2 also discussed the idea that uncertainty may be higher for batters than for pitchers. Please discuss this point. That is, do the authors agree with this point and how is this idea potentially reflected in the results? [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The statistical analysis in this manuscript was fascinating. I found it interesting that the author chose a hypothetical baseball game with a score of 0-0 in the 1st inning. Baseball seems to have an infinite amount of situations, but the author did a great job to break down a fraction of them and draw conclusions. Great work! Reviewer #2: The survey is thorough, well analyzed, and has an interesting premise. However, the scope is limited in many ways. The context of a first inning, no 0-0 game score is, itself, a factor in judging pitcher or batter advantage. How different might the results be in contexts such as late innings with "your" team behind (or ahead) by one run? It is meaningful that hitters have more extreme views of pitch count advantage for both batters and pitchers. Of course, batters have much more uncertainty. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Jacob Terry Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309328.r001
Revision 1
11 Jul 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: The statistical analysis in this manuscript was fascinating. I found it interesting that the author chose a hypothetical baseball game with a score of 0-0 in the 1st inning. Baseball seems to have an infinite amount of situations, but the author did a great job to break down a fraction of them and draw conclusions. Great work! Response: Thank you very much. We are extremely grateful for your comments on our manuscript. Reviewer #2: The survey is thorough, well analyzed, and has an interesting premise. However, the scope is limited in many ways. The context of a first inning, no 0-0 game score is, itself, a factor in judging pitcher or batter advantage. How different might the results be in contexts such as late innings with "your" team behind (or ahead) by one run? It is meaningful that hitters have more extreme views of pitch count advantage for both batters and pitchers. Of course, batters have much more uncertainty. Response: As a limitation of this study, we did not take into account some game situations and factors, such as the inning (early, middle, or late), top or bottom of the inning, number of pitches per pitcher, score, or home or away games. For example, a previous research showed that the weighting in the probability of winning differed between the first and ninth innings [Lindsey, 1961]. In addition, other factors such as the batter's good or bad performance may be related to the recognition of actual baseball games. These points are listed as limitations (page 18-19, lines 324-329): “Second, we did not take into account some game situations and factors, such as the inning (early, middle, or late), top or bottom of the inning, number of pitches per pitcher, score, or home or away games. For example, research showed that the weighting in the probability of winning differed between the first and ninth innings [1]. Additionally, other factors such as the batter's good or bad performance may be related to the recognition of actual baseball games.” Additional Editor Comments: Two reviewers have assessed the paper. While both reviews were generally positive, there is concern over the very narrow scope of the situation assessed in the paper. Please address the potential (or lack thereof) for obtaining different results depending on the situation (eg. inning and score) in the game. Reviewer #2 also discussed the idea that uncertainty may be higher for batters than for pitchers. Please discuss this point. That is, do the authors agree with this point and how is this idea potentially reflected in Response: We appreciate this constructive comment. We added the discussion (pages 18, lines 309-313): “However, we also considered that our data could not apply to and fit all cases in the game situation. For example, when the score is tied, the importance of performance increases in the ninth inning than in the first inning [1]. This may lead batters to be more sensitive about their perception of the count, but pitchers may also show a similar tendency.” In addition, we added an explanation for the reason in greater cognitive changes in batters than pitchers (pages 18, lines 313-318): “Additionally, the difference in the number of plays might be associated with the difference in perception between batters and pitchers. That is, once a batter is in at-bat, there is an interval of eight batters before the next at-bat as batting order. In contrast, a pitcher faces all batters continuously. The small number of batting play in a baseball game may lead batters to be more sensitive.” Additional requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Response: The address of the reference in citation No. 23 was incomplete. Therefore, we have corrected it to include the complete address (page 24, lines 413-416). “[23] Une N. The "most average hitter" in 2021 is... The average OPS of players who have reached the regular at-bat is .783 for Central League and .763 for Pacific League. [in Japanese; Internet]. 2021; https://news.yahoo.co.jp/byline/unenatsuki/20211209-00271866. [Accessed 2 May 2023].” If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. Response: All relevant data and laboratory protocols are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request (page 24, lines 411-414). The manuscript has now been rechecked by a native English speaker. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Submissions Needing Revision.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309328.r002
16 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Nick Fogt, Editor PONE-D-24-17774R1Recognition of the game situation in baseballPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hasimoto, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 30 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Nick Fogt Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for your responses. Some of the wording in lines 310-318 should be modified. Please consider the following re-write: "However, we also considered that our data may not apply to and fit all game situations. For example, when the score is tied, the importance of performance increases in the ninth inning compared to the first inning [1]. This may lead batters to be more sensitive about their perception of the count, but pitchers may also show a similar tendency. Additionally, the difference in the number of times a batter is at the plate compared to the number of batters a pitcher faces might be associated with the difference in perception between batters and pitchers. That is, once a batter finishes an at-bat, there is an interval of eight batters before the next at-bat. In contrast, a pitcher faces all batters consecutively. The small number of times a batter is at the plate in a baseball game may lead to greater sensitivity for batters than for pitchers." Please also consider whether this is the way you wanted to state this particular thing: "For example, when the score is tied, the importance of performance increases in the ninth inning compared to the first inning [1]." That sounds as if batters care more about their performance in the ninth inning compared to the first inning. Does this actually mean that expectations change in terms of what pitches might be thrown, or does it actually mean that batters are not as "tuned in" to the count in first inning? [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309328.r003
Revision 2
23 Jul 2024 Author Response Response Letter Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Response: We corrected the issue where the doi codes or URL for four citations had a "." at the end, which made them unlinkable. We were unable to find the retracted paper. Of course, if there is one, I would like to correct it. Could you please let me know? [7] Mao Y, Roberts S, Pagliaro S, Csikszentmihalyi M, Bonaiuto M. Optimal experience and optimal identity: a multinational study of the associations between flow and social identity. Front Psychol. 2016;7. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00067 [13] Panduro J, Ermidis G, Røddik L, Vigh-Larsen JF, Madsen EE, Larsen MN, et al. Physical performance and loading for six playing positions in elite female football: full-game, end-game, and peak periods. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2022;1(Suppl. 1): 115-126. doi:10.1111/sms.13877 [22] Une N. The "Most Average Hitter" in 2020 is... In the Pacific League, the batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage are one point behind the average. [in Japanese; Internet]. 2020; https://news.yahoo.co.jp/byline/unenatsuki/20201128-00209940 [Accessed 2 May 2023]. [23] Une N. The "most average hitter" in 2021 is... The average OPS of players who have reached the regular at-bat is .783 for Central League and .763 for Pacific League. [in Japanese; Internet]. 2021; https://news.yahoo.co.jp/byline/unenatsuki/20211209-00271866 [27] Lindsey GR. An Investigation of Strategies in Baseball. Ops Res. 1963;11: 477-501. doi:10.1287/opre.11.4.477 Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for your responses. Some of the wording in lines 310-318 should be modified. Please consider the following re-write: "However, we also considered that our data may not apply to and fit all game situations. For example, when the score is tied, the importance of performance increases in the ninth inning compared to the first inning [1]. This may lead batters to be more sensitive about their perception of the count, but pitchers may also show a similar tendency. Additionally, the difference in the number of times a batter is at the plate compared to the number of batters a pitcher faces might be associated with the difference in perception between batters and pitchers. That is, once a batter finishes an at-bat, there is an interval of eight batters before the next at-bat. In contrast, a pitcher faces all batters consecutively. The small number of times a batter is at the plate in a baseball game may lead to greater sensitivity for batters than for pitchers." Please also consider whether this is the way you wanted to state this particular thing: "For example, when the score is tied, the importance of performance increases in the ninth inning compared to the first inning [1]." That sounds as if batters care more about their performance in the ninth inning compared to the first inning. Does this actually mean that expectations change in terms of what pitches might be thrown, or does it actually mean that batters are not as "tuned in" to the count in first inning? Response: We apologize for our insufficient explanation. We consider that expectations have changed, as you pointed out. However, we think of it as an expectation for victory, not for pitch type. If the score is the same 1-0, the meaning of the situation is very different depending on the inning. For example, in the 1st inning, there are 9 chances to turn the game around; by contrast, in the 9th inning, there is only one chance to turn the game around. It is conceivable that batters and pitchers consider the 9th inning to be more important than the 1st inning. For this reason, we expect that the perception of advantage or disadvantage of batters and pitchers based on outs, balls, and strike counts will fluctuate more in the 9th inning than in the 1st inning. We added this explanation in Discussion section (page 18, lines 317-324): “We also considered that our data could not apply to and fit all cases in the game situation. For example, when the score is tied, the importance of performance increases in the ninth inning than in the first inning [1]. In other words, expectations for victory have changed, depending on inning. If the score is the same, that is. 1–0, the meaning of the situation can be very different. For instance, in the first inning, there are nine chances to turn the game around; by contrast, in the ninth inning, there is only one chance to turn the game around. It is conceivable that batters and pitchers consider the ninth inning to be more important than the first inning. For this reason, we expect that the perception of advantage or disadvantage of batters and pitchers based on outs, balls, and strike counts will fluctuate more in the ninth inning than in the first.” In addition, we have reconsidered the structure of the text and moved the following sentences (page 18, lines 309-314). “We hypothesized that this was related to the differences in perception between batters and pitchers, which were in turn based on the difference in the number of plays. Specifically, once a batter is in at-bat, there is an interval of eight batters before the next at-bat as batting order. By contrast, a pitcher faces all batters continuously. The small amount of batting play in a baseball game may lead batters to be more sensitive.” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Submissions Needing Revision2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309328.r004
5 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Nick Fogt, Editor Recognition of the game situation in baseball PONE-D-24-17774R2 Dear Dr. Hasimoto, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Nick Fogt Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Lines 312-313: please remove the word "in" before the term "at bat", and remove the phrase "as batting order". These are not necessary in this sentence. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309328.r005
Formally Accepted
12 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Nick Fogt, Editor PONE-D-24-17774R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hashimoto, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Nick Fogt Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309328.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .