A Framework for Using Virtual Reality to Enhance Psychological Performance in Baseball

Abstract

Virtual reality (VR) has become an increasingly popular tool for use in sports, particularly with regards to enhancing the psychological performance of athletes. Despite this, a systematic approach in exactly how sporting organizations can apply the technology appears to be lacking. This paper proposes the Baseball Framework for Applying Virtual Reality (Baseball-FAVR) which aims to guide practitioners within professional baseball as to how, when, and with whom VR can be used to enhance the performance of their players. The framework outlines six specific use cases which are reflected by their suggested prioritization at each affiliate level from Major League down to Rookie (newly drafted to an organization). It is hoped that the Baseball-FAVR will enable baseball organizations to take advantage of the many potential benefits that VR technology offers to the sport.

Keywords:

• Baseball
• baseball-FAVR
• baseball framework for applying virtual reality
• psychological performance
• virtual reality

In this work, I present a framework for practitioners within baseball that will enable them to harness the advantages of virtual reality (VR) technology. Since obtaining my PhD under the supervision of Dr Rob Gray (a leading researcher in the field of sports skill acquisition; see, for instance, Gray, 2015-present), I have been working in both academic and sporting environments to help bridge the gap between research and practice in sports science. Between 2018 and 2020 I was fortunate enough to work at a Major League Baseball organization in a dual role as vision, perception, and cognition coach and skill acquisition specialist. It was during this time that I first experienced the potential of VR and began thinking about its role in enhancing the performance of all athletes, especially those in baseball. Over the last five years, I have made it my goal to understand the application of this technology in more detail, and to share this understanding with others.

Of all the sports that exist, baseball is arguably one of the most compatible with the potential advantages that VR technology can offer. Though a team sport, it is primarily a series of contests between just two individuals (a pitcher and a hitter) who remain in a fixed location whilst performing their skills—greatly easing the complexity of the virtual environment to be built compared to more open, dynamic, and contextually-driven sports such as soccer, basketball, or football. Additionally, the importance of psychological skills, and particularly visual, perceptual, and cognitive (VPC) skills, is perhaps greater in baseball than in most other sports (Klemish et al., 2018), and it is these skills which current research suggests are most receptive to VR training (Le Noury et al., 2022), rather than technical or physical skills that may carry greater weight in the aforementioned other sports. Moreover, baseball is one of the few sports that boasts a large number of stakeholders capable of investing the necessary resources to implement the technology, with 30 professional organizations in North America each valued at $1billion or more (Forbes, 2023), dozens of US colleges spending millions of dollars a year on their baseball programs (DIY College Rankings, 2019), and professional leagues in Asia boasting numerous organizations with more-than sufficient financial power (Jang & Lee, 2016). Outside of football, basketball, and soccer—few other sports have such a deep pool of potential organizations capable of investing the finances and workforce to implement a successful VR program¹.

Despite this, the application of VR from an on-field performance perspective is far from ubiquitous in Major League Baseball (MLB). Estimates of usage range from around two thirds of the league (Lemire, 2021) to around half of the league (unpublished data from Dowsett et al., 2023). One of the reasons for this may be in not knowing exactly how VR can be used to enhance performance in the sport. Whilst Dowsett et al. (2023) showed that baseball practitioners had high levels of self-reported knowledge of the technology, they also found considerable variability in who would be responsible for implementing it, how often it would be used, and which players would primarily use it. Though this could suggest differing organizational strategies toward VR, it more likely reflects a general uncertainty about the optimal ways in which the technology can be utilized to gain an on-field competitive advantage. A recent narrative review on the topic by Richlan et al. (2023), supports this idea as they conclude that systematic patterns in the literature cannot yet be identified because current application of the technology is so varied. This paper aims to address this issue by outlining a framework for using VR to enhance psychological performance in baseball via six potential use cases.

Virtual reality

Before outlining the six use cases of VR it is important to establish a clear definition of the technology in question, particularly given the increasing overlap with similar concepts such as augmented reality, mixed reality, and 360-degree-video. Virtual reality refers to “the simulation of an interactive three-dimensional environment that users can be immersed into and that they can interact with” (Sagnier et al., 2020, pp. 993). Key here is that it is three-dimensional and immersive (distinguishing it from interactive but screen-based products such as motion-sensing video game consoles like the Nintendo Wii). What is also important is that the user’s head movements change the perspective of the VR environment and that their interactions change what occurs in the VR environment—both in real-time. An immersive, three-dimensional environment in which the individual is passively viewing a scenario (such as is the case with 360-degree-video paradigms often mistakenly labeled as VR) or making a post-event decision with the press of a button is not VR (Gray, 2019).

The basic setup of a baseball VR system requires an approximate 15 feet by 15 feet space and consists of a head-mounted display (HMD), controller(s) attached to the bat, and virtual environment, though more intricate setups can exist depending on organizational requirements. There are also cave automatic virtual environments (CAVE systems) which consist of a larger and more permanent space in which projectors generate the virtual environment on surrounding walls as opposed to being produced via an HMD. Whilst there are benefits to the CAVE in terms of field-of-view and reduced cyber-sickness (akin to motion sickness), HMD systems are far superior in immersion, interactivity, and logistics, and therefore have become the almost universally used approach. Despite several VR sports companies existing in the commercial sector, it is notable that much of the published work to date has been conducted with systems built out of universities or other, noncommercial research centers.

Finally, whilst this paper’s primary focus is on the application of VR, rather than detailing the science underpinning it, it is nevertheless worth briefly mentioning the theoretical principles from which confidence in VR use is being gleaned. VR training is grounded in ecological dynamics theory and representative learning design (Le Noury et al., 2022). By placing a player into a realistic, game environment, and having them interact as they would in a game, VR ensures that the key, reciprocal relationships between athlete, task, and environment are maintained, allowing the player to continuously problem solve, self-organize, and learn. VR environments have the capability to closely replicate the same, key information sources that a player experiences in a game to allow for the detection of affordances for action (Pinder et al., 2011). Whilst it cannot, of course, recreate certain sources to the extent of live-pitching practice, it exceeds that achieved by traditional batting practice or tee work, and also has the benefit that task constraints can be more easily manipulated in order to aid skill acquisition. In having players swing at pitches (as opposed to making pitch recognition decisions via a button push), perception-action coupling is also maintained, which is important given the intertwined nature of perception (e.g., recognizing a pitch) and action (e.g., deciding to swing or not). Considerable research has demonstrated this coupling to be essential in elucidating expertise differences, including in baseball batting (Ranganathan & Carlton, 2007). For these reasons, Hadlow et al.’s Modified Perceptual Training Framework (MPTF) (Hadlow et al., 2018) considers VR one of the most effective tools currently available for training the VPC skills of baseball hitters. Several recently published review papers echo these positive assertions, concluding that the current literature demonstrates the potential of VR to be effective in improving perceptual-cognitive skills (Le Noury et al., 2022), assessing performance in team ball sports (Faure et al., 2020), and enhancing general athletic performance (Richlan et al., 2023).

Six use cases

Use case #1 (UC1): hitters – pitch recognition training

For hitters, VR currently serves two functions, the first of which is as an immersive, interactive pitch recognition tool. That is, in the same way that a player may utilize videos to watch pitches (often in a temporal occlusion paradigm) to test and train their visual recognition, VR can be used to provide an upgraded experience of the same idea. Temporal occlusion paradigms (where videos are edited to present selective visual stimuli from a situation, such as the wind-up portion only of a pitch, or the first 0.1 ms of the pitch’s trajectory) have been shown to elicit expertise differences in pitch recognition ability between hitters (Müller et al., 2017) and it has been suggested that this same method may be effective in training pitch recognition too (Fadde & Zaichkowsky, 2018). In VR, players can watch any pitch from the egocentric perspective of the hitter (as opposed to the slightly off-center perspective afforded by most video-based tools) and can indicate their decision by swinging or not swinging a bat, the temporal and spatial location of which is depicted within the VR environment (as opposed to pressing a button on a computer program).

It is important to clarify here that the inclusion of the swing does not mean that the swing outcome is of relevance. The swing action ensures perception-action coupling, which as discussed earlier is theorized to produce stronger and more reliable training benefits, but the swing outcome (i.e., where the ball goes) is limited by the refresh rate of current VR technology to precisely render, in real-time, completely accurate bat-ball contact given the high speed of a typical bat swing. That is, if the current best refresh rate for VR HMDs is 180 Hz (Wang et al., 2023) and a bat is swung at approximately 25 m/s (Koenig et al., 2004), then the spatial location of the bat will only be rendered with exact certainty every 13.9 cm (see Wang et al., 2023, for a general review on the impact of frame rate in VR). From an engagement perspective, this is a concern because players inevitably want to be able to see the outcome of their swing, but if the feedback provided (i.e., the direction a ball goes after “making contact” with the virtual bat) is even one-tenth of a centimeter off, then this may not just inhibit any training benefits but could potentially even have detrimental consequences. This is why VR cannot be confidently used to improve the technical aspects of hitting and, as such, the most effective training approach is likely to be VR systems targeting the pitch recognition skills of hitters and in which swinging is possible (to maintain perception-action coupling) but where post “contact” information is not provided. Indeed, a seminal study within the literature by Gray (2017) found significant improvements on a pitch recognition test, as well as metrics considered reflective of pitch recognition (O-Swing percentage and Z-Swing percentage), in a group of high school hitters who underwent a VR training intervention that adopted this approach. Similar positive training effects on decision-making skills have also been found in basketball (Pagé et al., 2019) and soccer (Fortes et al., 2021).

Use case #2 (UC2): hitters – game day scouting report

The idea that hitters perform better the more times they face a pitcher (in the same game) is not just a logical belief, but one also evidenced with statistical analyses (e.g., Tango et al., 2007). Data supports the theory that “the more a batter sees a pitcher’s delivery and repertoire, the more likely he is to be successful against him” (Lichtman, 2013), and it is common for the game day preparation of hitters to involve studying film of the opposing pitcher in part to exploit this. The perceived “time through the order” advantage to the hitter is so pervasive in baseball that managers regularly remove starting pitchers to prevent opposing hitters from facing them for a third time (see Game 6 of the 2020 World Series for a high-profile example; Rivera, 2020). VR has the potential to expedite that process for hitters.

Whilst most VR applications utilize animated environments, it is possible to embed real-world video into a system—such as game film of opposing pitchers. Thus, hitters can virtually face their upcoming opponent, seeing and swinging (or not) at the repertoire of deliveries that they are likely to receive. This could be done as game day preparation (replacing or adding to traditional video “scouting” of the pitcher), or even between innings, time-permitting. This premise has already been achieved in a non-VR format whereby a video of a pitcher can be projected life-size onto a screen, behind which a ball-machine is synchronized to release a ball at the correct time to replicate the delivery. However, such an approach has limitations, including reduced immersion compared to VR and the inability to vary the release point of the pitch (Giblin et al., 2016). Finally, a potential variation of this use case is that if the swing response is removed, then it is possible to use an HMD system in smaller, seated areas, such as when traveling or in a locker room. This would, though, mean removing the key perception-action coupling that is a strength of VR and therefore should only be used supplementarily.

It should be noted that this use case requires a lot of computer power, and therefore the technical aspects of how videoed embedding is achieved warrants strong consideration. One option is to crop precisely around the pitcher so that their appearance within the virtual environment is as close to seamless as possible, however, this is a vastly time-consuming task and therefore instances in which this occurs are often offset by integrating only one instance of each pitch type for each pitcher. A second option is to avoid cropping around the pitcher, and instead embed the whole video directly onto the virtual environment (see Ara & Nakamura, 2020). Visually this can look unusual, but the physical fidelity of a VR system (how realistic it looks) is likely to be much less important than the psychological fidelity of a system (how well it recreates the perceptual-cognitive demands of the real world) (Gray, 2019). The advantage of this second option is that enables many multiples of each pitch type for each pitcher to be stored on the system for use. Whilst the first option is the more esthetically pleasing, it is flawed because a pitcher’s mechanics are not always consistent even within each pitch type (i.e., fastball A does not always look like fastball B). Thus, by training on only one—potentially outlier—pitch, a hitter may miss the cues important in detecting what that pitch is. The second option eliminates this problem and, despite the potential for initial skepticism from hitters expecting the “wow factor” of VR (Harris et al., 2020), should be the preferred approach in this use case.

Use case #3 (UC3): pitchers – strategy

Given how carefully the physical workload of pitchers needs to be managed (Dowling et al., 2020), the optimal use of VR for this position is an indirect one, through the findings of VR work carried out with hitters. Whilst it is common to think of VR solely as a training tool, its benefits are arguably more impactful in how it can be used to understand the mechanisms underpinning sporting performance. That is, VR affords the capability to create scenarios that are either impossible or logistically difficult in the real world, and to do so in a controlled and repeatable manner. For instance, the concept of pitch tunneling—where the trajectories of two different types of pitches remain near-identical for as long as possible—has grown rapidly in the last decade (Blewett, 2017), yet a potential counterargument to this is that the requirement to release both pitches from the exact same point may in fact be giving hitters an advantage in knowing where to fixate their gaze. VR can be used to manipulate the release point of a pitcher (animated avatar, not real-world video) to systematically examine the impact that tunneled pitches have on hitters.

Along the same vein, how visible or hidden the ball is to the hitter during a pitcher’s wind-up is crucial in determining how much prerelease information they receive to help in the swing decision process (Lindbergh, 2021). VR can again be used to investigate this. How variations in a pitcher’s cadence potentially impacts the mechanics and/or performance of hitters is another question that real-world experimentation would find difficult to answer. VR is also now capable of incorporating eye-tracking technology within the headsets, and whilst there is some published research which has explored where hitters look during the pitch using in-situ methods (see Toole & Fogt, 2021, for a review), there remains many unanswered questions regarding the gaze behavior of hitters. The answers to these questions and more could have considerable implications for pitcher development and pitcher strategies.

Use case #4 (UC4): fielders – post-game analysis

A less impactful, but nevertheless still potentially beneficial use of VR is as a post-game analysis tool for fielders. Specifically, VR can be used to recreate situations from a previous game and place a coach or player in any location on the field to better understand why players made certain decisions and interrogate whether those decisions were optimal. For instance, a coach could place themselves in the exact perspective of the shortstop to see what factors may have led them to make the decision to throw to first base rather than home; or a pitcher could reeexperience a play to see what cues they may have missed that allowed a runner to steal second base. By itself, this use omits the interactivity that is essential in VR (and would be more akin to 360-video), but it would be relatively straightforward to incorporate a perception-action-inducing component that builds on aspects of the post-game analysis to train or test the decision-making skills of players.

MLB teams likely already conduct post-game analysis of fielding plays, yet the traditional method for doing this (broadcast video) has limited representativeness (Kittel et al., 2021) particularly when compared to VR. Thus, like UC1, this use case can be considered an upgrade on current practices by providing a more immersive experience that enables more active information-seeking from the environment, and from a more appropriate visual perspective. In soccer, such an approach has been adopted by broadcasters as a way to enhance post-match analysis for television audiences (Sky Sports Premier League, 2020) whilst it is reported that the National Basketball Association is hoping to train referees in a similar manner (Dowsett, 2022). Research has found that basketball players who watched video clips through VR showed greater improvements in their decision-making skills compared to those who watched through a computer screen (Pagé et al., 2019), whilst the enhanced enjoyment of training decision-making through VR compared to traditional methods (Kittel et al., 2020) is also worth highlighting as an advantage.

Use case #5 (UC5): all players – psychological readiness

Progression as a baseball player ideally involves several smooth transitions from pre-professional settings (e.g., high school or college), through minor-league affiliates, and to the highest, MLB level. With each transition there is the potential for disruption in a player’s development, but this is perhaps most pronounced at two points: from pre-professional into an MLB organization (i.e., Rookie level) and from the minor league system (AAA) to the major league team (MLB). VR can be used to ease this transition by allowing players to experience replications of the environments and situations to expect at each level. For instance, a AAA player about to be promoted to the MLB team could use VR to experience what it is like (visually, auditorily, and emotionally) to play at a major league stadium in front of tens of thousands of people. At the Rookie level, the focus may not be on-field, but rather, on the use of VR to provide recently drafted high-school players with an experience of the clubhouse prior to arriving for the first time. Such a scenario could be even more important for players within the organization based outside of the USA (e.g., at an organization’s Dominican Republic affiliate), especially if they have never left their native country.

The use of VR to familiarize oneself with a novel situation, with the logic that this will reduce any negative feelings (such as anxiety) toward the scenario, is commonplace in wider psychology. Indeed, research exploring VR to facilitate exposure therapy for individuals with anxiety or post-traumatic stress has been ongoing since the mid-1990s (Rothbaum & Hodges, 1999). Whilst it may seem discourteous to compare clinical disorders with the optimizing of baseball performance, the same basic premise applies to both. That is, VR enables the recreation of an anxiety-inducing environment; immersion in which leads to positive cognitive (Robillard et al., 2010), behavioral (Garcia-Palacios et al., 2002), and neurobiological adaptations (Tarrant et al., 2018). Research within the sports domain has found that VR can effectively induce competition anxiety in cricket batters (Kelly et al., 2022) and soccer goalkeepers (Stinson & Bowman, 2014). Interestingly a recent study in which VR was used as a relaxation intervention found significantly reduced anxiety and stress and increased confidence in female soccer players (Harrison et al., 2021). Whether used to replicate the pressure and emotions of elite sports competition, act as a form of exposure or relaxation therapy, or simply help acclimatize an individual to a new environment, VR has the potential to enhance psychological readiness in baseball players.

Use case #6 (UC6): injured players – maintaining engagement

The final use case centers on the capability of VR to allow injured and rehabbing players to remain productive by training mentally without the risk of further harm through physical contact (Greenhough et al., 2021) and it is noteworthy that of the MLB practitioners surveyed by Dowsett et al. (2023), 87% identified injured and rehabbing players as the most likely individuals to use VR within their organization. Indeed, in the paper by Dowsett and colleagues, the authors suggest that one possible application of VR is simply in providing opportunities for injured athletes to engage in on-site activities and interact with teammates and staff. The idea of keeping injured players involved in team-related activities has been championed by Self-Determination theorists for decades as it satisfies the key psychological need for relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2013), which can maintain wellbeing and motivation during the time that they are unable to play competitively.

One particular use could be to have injured hitters utilizing a scaled-back version of UC1 that removes the swinging component (the loss of perception-action coupling superseded by the need to prevent any worsening of the injury) to maintain/train pitch recognition skills. Coaches could also apply UC4 with injured position players, helping them to stay cognitively sharp before their return-to-play. Finally, there is also an argument that the task performed by injured players in the VR environment does not even need to be baseball-specific or evidence-based. Having players do anything in VR—such as the relaxation/meditation applications previously mentioned or engaging in perceptual-cognitive training games—may have important benefits. Evidence for the benefits of generalized perceptual-cognitive training programs is mixed (Roca & Williams, 2016), with many skeptical of any meaningful improvements to on-field sporting performance (Vater et al., 2021), yet an abundance of anecdotal evidence from athletes shows that many believe in such practices (EyeGym Success Stories, n.d.). Irrespective of the intended effectiveness of perceptual-cognitive training programs, it may be that by using them athletes experience a placebo effect—a phenomenon which can significantly and positively influence sports performance (Raglin et al., 2020) and which has been found to be a prominent tool amongst elite-level team sports coaches (Szabo & Müller, 2016).

The baseball framework for applying virtual reality

The Baseball Framework for Applying Virtual Reality (Baseball-FAVR) provides a graphical representation of the proposed effectiveness of each of the six use cases within the varying levels of an MLB organization (see Figure 1 below). That is, at which affiliate level—MLB down to Rookie—is each use case most and least appropriate. In the framework, each use case is depicted in a separate row which spans the six levels of professional baseball in the US. Lighter shades reflect optimal and recommended use, whilst darker shades reflect sub-optimal and less-prioritized use.

Figure 1. The baseball framework for applying virtual reality (baseball-FAVR).

For instance, the optimal use of UC1 is at the Rookie, A, A+, and AA levels. Pitch recognition is a fundamental skill for hitters, and therefore needs to be prioritized early. By contrast, UC2 is most effective for MLB players given the importance of winning at this level, with some benefit also extended to AAA players as they familiarize themselves with the game day routines expected in their transition to the next level. The outcome of UC3 is the potential development of new pitching strategies (such as a “surprise” release point pitch or stuttered wind-up cadence). As such, this would be most appropriate at AA and A + level, where fundamentals have been developed and large-scale changes to mechanics can be attempted without concern for potential initial struggles in adaptation. Like UC2, UC4 has more of a strategic focus as opposed to a technical skill focus and therefore is most suited to the level where winning is the priority; that of the MLB. Even the AAA level is likely to consider this a less-than-necessary use case. UC5 is important whenever there is a major transition to be experienced by a player. Beginning their professional career and, where relevant, moving to the USA (likely the Rookie level) is one obvious scenario, whilst promotion from AAA to the MLB is another. Finally, UC6 conceivably applies at all levels excluding that of the MLB, where other commitments are likely to be numerous and therefore there is less need for VR use solely as a tool to maintain engagement.

It should be noted that the darker shades in the Baseball-FAVR, do not indicate that VR would be detrimental to performance at this level. Rather, these are times where the application of VR provides the fewest benefits relative to other times and given the need to consider logistical factors such as time, player motivation, and staff workload. Thus, the light-to-dark color gradient should be regarded as a prioritization scale, rather than an effectiveness scale. For instance, a rookie hitter would certainly gain an advantage from using VR to face pitches from an upcoming opponent (UC2), but the development of their pitch recognition skills more generally is of greater importance (UC1). Contrastingly, MLB hitters would still benefit from training their pitch recognition skills through VR (UC1), but the importance of winning makes game day scouting (UC2) the priority in what is likely to be a more time-limited schedule.

Each of the six use cases detailed above highlights how VR can be used to enhance the psychological performance of baseball players, but there are additional advantages that warrant mentioning which apply both within and outside of each case. Hitters are the most likely beneficiaries, as VR can enable: (i) practice with contextual information such as game/base situation and realistic visual backgrounds; (ii) high volumes of repetitions without increasing pitcher/coach workload; (iii) comparison of players under the exact same conditions/pitches; and (iv) practice when conditionings are not desirable, such as in poor weather. However, several existing issues need to be overcome before VR can become pervasive in baseball. First, it is unclear the extent to which VR technology achieves its claims of fidelity (how accurately systems replicate real-world experiences) and validity (how effective systems are in achieving intended outcomes). Though beyond the scope of this review, I direct readers to the recent paper by Harris et al. (2020) which discusses this important topic in detail. The nascency of VR sports research and logistical concerns have been highlighted as key barriers for implementation in football (Greenhough et al, 2021; Thatcher et al., 2021;), and though Dowsett et al. (2023) found baseball practitioners to have very favorable attitudes toward the technology, organizational buy-in due to perceived value (as opposed to “cost,” per se) may still prove an obstacle for some. Finally, perhaps the leading issue for VR is how it is being framed. VR will never be a superior practice method to “the real thing,” yet it seems that many individuals believe this to be the claim made by VR proponents. VR has significant potential as an additional tool in a coach’s repertoire and managing the expectations and realities of the technology is likely to be a crucial first step in any successful implementation.

This paper has focused on providing explicit examples of how VR can be applied to enhance psychological performance in baseball, but it should be acknowledged that, (i) the protocols governing application also require careful consideration by stakeholders, and (ii) that many of these examples could be similarly applied in other sports. With regards the former, in a recent commentary of the intersection between technology and sports psychology, Raab et al. (2023) outline the importance of selecting the most appropriate information to use, explaining this information in the most appropriate manner, and doing so within the context of the sport in question. In light of these considerations, it is important that data and insights generated via UCs 1–6 are effectively utilized and integrated to ensure the potential benefits of VR use are optimized. With regards the latter, UC5 and UC6 could be utilized by most sports organizations in much the same way as outlined above. Similarly, adapting UC2 and UC4 into other contexts such as soccer is not just realistic, but a tool already promoted by some commercial VR companies (Rezzil, n.d.). Finally, conceptual equivalents of UC1 could be developed for any sport in which fast decision-making based on kinematic cues and early ball flight information are key (cricket and tennis would appear the most obvious beneficiaries).

Conclusion

VR technology has the potential to provide significant competitive advantages for baseball organizations, particularly with regards to the psychological performance of their players. Of course, VR by itself is not a magic bullet that will lead a team to a World Series—for this potential to become reality an organization needs to be strategic and targeted with its use. The Baseball-FAVR details six specific use cases and outlines which players (MLB down to Rookie level) would most benefit in each. It is hoped that the framework will provide confidence to baseball organizations that VR is a worthwhile investment (more so in administrative resources than financial capital) and help guide practitioners as to how best to implement the technology with their players.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge Dr Rob Gray for the significant role that he has played during his academic career. Furthermore, thanks must go to all the staff and players that he had the pleasure to work with during his time in the MLB, particularly the Hitting coaches and those within the Performance Science department.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 It should be noted that rapid developments in VR in recent years have led to substantial decreases in the costs associated with the technology, as well as the expertise needed to use it. Nevertheless, research has shown that key stakeholders within sports still associate VR with excessive resources, and it is this perception which often drives the strategic decision-making processes of sports organizations (Dowsett et al., 2023).