“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do you for your country”.

When John F. Kennedy made this remark at his presidential inauguration in 1961, he probably did not have Major League Baseball in mind. Yet, the same principles of this quote are now a pillar of baseball team building.

What do I mean by that? Teams should focus on how they can help a player, not just on what the player can do for them. In other words, rather than be scared by a player’s flaws, it is time that their strengths are celebrated. By doing so, more front offices can attack baseball’s latest market inefficiency.

In an ideal world, every player in the majors would have zero flaw to their game. However, the reality is that there isn’t a perfect player. After all, if even Mike Trout has his limitations (strikeouts, average defensively), chasing the “flawless player” is simply a pointless exercise — you’re chasing an illusion that is severely likely to become reality.

With that in mind, it comes down to understanding which flaws are more fatal than others. This is where teams begin to separate themselves from others; every front office has a different answer to that question. When there are differing viewpoints, that is where the market inefficiency comes into play; if a team can identify the flaws that don’t matter as much as they are made out to be, then they ought to be able to constantly find steals in the draft, free agency, and all other transactions.

By now, you’re probably wondering the answer to our key question: Which flaws are currently overvalued? As you’d expect with such a complex sport, there aren’t just one or two to highlight. Rather, undervalued players tend to fall under the eight following categories when it comes to a specific weakness causing them to be overlooked:

Strikes Out Too Much

Since they are an out, it is clear why strikeouts are alarming when evaluating a hitter. If you put the ball in play, for instance, there is a chance that you can still get on base with some luck, but failing to make contact often leads to the worst outcome.

However, contact is often made in a way that sacrifices hard contact, and when you have to choose between the two, quality of contact appears to matter more than the frequency of it. Going back to 2015, there is a zero percent correlation between whiff% and wOBA, and the same is true for strikeout percentage:

Correlation (or lack thereof) between wOBA vs K% (via Baseball Savant)

Contact rate and strikeout rate are important in that they are known to be useful for predicting one’s batting average. Yet, so is hitting the ball hard, so if it comes at a cost, there really isn’t any benefit to hitting the ball more frequently. In other words, although every player should strive to not strike out, the potential trade-off in doing so may actually hurt them. Thus, striking out too much, if it is accompanied by a hard-hit rate and respectable walk rate, is a flaw that appears to be significantly overstated.

Issues With Pitch Mix

This is far more straightforward. Oftentimes, pitchers are pigeon-holed to fit a specific prototype of pitcher, based on organizational philosophies. In the end, though, why not throw your best pitches more, and your worst pitches less? That may seem self-explanatory, but it is often seen as a death sentence when a young pitcher cannot develop a third pitch. Yet, that hasn’t stopped Lance Lynn, Tyler Glasnow, Dinelson Lamet, Patrick Corbin, and others from succeeding. Those are lofty examples, but it does illustrate that the narrative that pitchers must have three productive pitches may be false.

Take Kevin Gausman, for example. Over the past two seasons, the 29-year-old has completely ditched his breaking ball in favor of becoming a fastball-splitter/changeup pitcher. The results have been tremendous - a 3.09 FIP in 2020 - and now, he’s well-regarded enough that the Giants issued a qualifying offer to him.

Additionally, being able to identify a pitch that a pitcher needs to utilize more also can lead to a team discovering an undervalued asset. For instance, when the Angels acquired Dylan Bundy, they did so knowing that he was capable of achieving more by decreasing his fastball usage. In the end, the 27-year-old had the best season of his career (2.95 FIP, 3.75 xFIP), and he is far from the last example; the art of altering one’s pitch mix was incredibly evident with the Astros acquiring the likes of Charlie Morton and Gerrit Cole, only to have them become pure power pitchers by ditching their sinkers for more traditional four-seamers.

Ultimately, the key here is that no two pitchers are identical to one another. They all have different strengths and weaknesses. Thus, it is up to the organization to maximize on their abilities, and if a team can identify players who aren’t receiving that treatment, they’ll be getting the best bang for their buck.

“Doesn’t Look The Part”

This applies more to prospect analysis that it does to MLB decision making, but it is still incredibly important. Oftentimes, we like to focus on a player’s “overall ceiling”, which is derived from their physical tools. However, if a player performs, why should it matter if he “looks the part”? As always, I’ll go back to my favorite quote from Moneyball, where Brad Pitt, playing Billy Beane, states: “If he’s a good hitter, why doesn’t he hit good?”

Randy Arozarena may only be 5’11”, 170 pounds, but his bat speed allows him to hit for power. The same goes for Max Muncy, Jose Altuve, and other talented players. This is also similar for pitchers, where size can be a predictor of stamina, but often is overvalued; Marcus Stroman and Johnny Cueto stand out.

We would love for players to look the part in terms of mechanics and body type in addition to producing. That’s an unreasonable asking price, though, so when it comes down to it, do you want a player who produces but looks ugly doing so, or someone who looks the part and doesn’t provide the team with any value? The answer there is pretty self-explanatory, but until we become more aware of this major scouting misconception, progressive organizations will continue to take advantage.

Poor Defense

With defensive efforts from Mookie Betts, Kevin Kiermaier, Manuel Margot, Willy Adames, and Ji-Man Choi, we witnessed high-level defensive play this postseason. Thus, defense must be incredibly important, right?

Not exactly. In a study I wrote for mvpsportstalk.com, I found that a defensive run above average was 5.35 times less valuable than an offensive runs above average. Common thinking would lead you to believe that a run saved is as productive as a run earned, but based on the results from that study, I wouldn’t believe that to be the case.

This correlates with a shift in all sports: offensive value is becoming more significant than defensive value by the day. Ideally, you could have a Mookie Betts that can do it all. Yet, those players are nearly impossible to acquire, especially for small-market organizations. With that in mind, it is imperative that one not only does not sacrifice offense for defense, but also doesn’t diminish a player’s abilities too much for a lack of defense. With baseball continuing to shift to more of a “three true outcomes” game, I certainly see this is as a flaw that continues to be less important

Mechanical Deficiency

When we discussed players that “didn’t look the part”, I mentioned that players may have poor swings, but if it is working, the concerns tend to be overblown. At the same time, there are certain mechanical deficiencies that can severely hamper a player’s chances of developing.

Luckily, this is why smart organizations invest so many resources into their player development staff. For hitters, the Dodgers and Cubs have been among the teams at the forefront of tweaking prospects’ swings and watching them reach new heights. For pitching, Los Angeles also has a great reputation, with the Rays and Indians not far behind.

I am a major proponent of weighing a player’s present skills heavily into a pick, as it is quantifiable and development can be tricky. However, if you know that your organization is well-suited to develop a specific type of prospect, why not flex your muscles in that regard? This is one of the reasons why Tampa Bay and Los Angeles have continued to dominate the draft.

Hitting The Ball On The Ground Too Much

If there is any team that needs to take advantage of the dismissal of flawed players, it’s the Rays, who had the third-lowest payroll this season. Just like the rest of the league, they value players who hit the ball hard; their team exit velocity ranked 6th and 9th in 2019 and 2020, respectively. It’s the trajectory of the ball where they stand out, though.

Tampa Bay has generally ranked in the top ten in groundball-to-flyball ratio, and, honestly, this makes perfect sense. They do not have the budget to acquire players who hit the ball hard AND at an optimal launch angle, like the Dodgers, so they are forced to pick between the two.

Here are the coefficient of determination values for wOBA compared to exit velocity and launch angle. In others, here is how much exit velocity and launch angle can be used to predict one’s wOBA:

Exit Velocity to wOBA: 25%
Launch Angle to wOBA: 4%
Ground Ball% to wOBA: 9%

From this data, it is clear that Tampa Bay is rightfully prioritizing acquiring hitters who hit the ball hard over those who don’t, but do so at an optimal launch. Yandy Diaz, Randy Arozarena, Avisail Garcia, Tommy Pham, and Ji-Man Choi are among the players that the Rays have acquired despite subpar launch angles. In an ideal world, they’d be able to help develop those hitters. Worst case, though, they are still acquiring players that are likely to be undervalued.

Doesn’t Throw Hard Enough

Although I’d say this applies more to prospect analysis than it does with MLB players, it is relevant in both areas. This goes back to “looking the part”.

When a pitcher is blowing hitters away with 100 mph, they are so much fun to watch, and certainly past the “eye test”. Someone who operates in the low 90s, however, is far less exciting.

Nevertheless, it all comes down to production. Between vertical movement, spin rate, extension, and release height, there are several important variables when it comes to having a productive fastball. Meanwhile, breaking ball operation and command also tell a huge part of the story regarding a pitcher’s skill set, especially since velocity is certainly something that can be improved with more efficient mechanics.

Velocity is crucial for a pitcher, as having a high 90s fastball increases your margin for error. However, if said pitch cannot be commanded, is flat, and/or you’re reliant on it, does it really matter? Not according to Mike Brosseau:

Ultimately, a flawed pitcher still holds a lot of value. Lacking elite velocity puts more pressure on your skills in other areas, but it certainly is not an “end all be all” when it comes to having success at the professional level.

Lack of Power

Once again, if you can have a well-rounded hitter than can get on-base AND hit for power, that would be perfect. Yet, we do not live in a perfect world, and if forced to pick between the two, one ought to pick the former.

Look no further than the construction of wOBA. One point of on-base percentage has been cited as 1.8 times more valuable than one point of slugging percentage, while one point of one-base percentage is roughly 1.4 times more valuable than one point of isolated power.

Think of the ability to get on base as the foundation to a player’s offensive skill set, while power is the icing on the cake. Power production is also known to be more volatile year-to-year, while plate discipline has been found to be the most stable metric for hitters.

When correlation and stability are on specific skillset’s side, it is probably logical to value it more than they other. With offense being so critical to a team’s success, they should look to be able to get on base AND slug. However, I cannot help but overstate the value that “pesky on-base” hitters have for teams, and am interested to see if the Dodgers, Rays, A’s, Giants, and other progressive organizations continue to swipe these players in the open market and the prospect acquisition process.

Application of this information

Now that we know the flaws that are often overvalued by teams, it is time for us to put it into practices. To start, why not acknowledge organizations that already are attacking the market inefficiency of flawed players?

I’ve mentioned the Rays a lot in this piece, and that is because they not only take advantage of this incredibly, but also are forced to do it out of necessity. Their whole team is built with players who have been passed on due to some flaw, and their ability to recognize undervalued assets was a key part of them reaching the World Series.
Speaking of the World Series, the Dodgers operate very similar to the Rays, except that they have the money to pursue less-flawed players. Nevertheless, they are exceptional in terms of player development, which has allowed them to to snatch the likes of Justin Turner, Max Muncy, Chris Taylor, and Jake McGee for nothing.
Farhan Zaidi, the President of Baseball Operations for the Giants, comes from Los Angeles, so it should be no surprise he has attacked this market inefficiency tremendously. They do a great job of giving these undervalued players the opportunities to flourish, recognize that player development isn’t linear, and believe in their ability to maximize the abilities of both position players and pitchers; Mike Yastrzemski, Alex Dickerson, Kevin Gausman, Drew Smyly, and Darin Ruf are all a part of a massive list of steals Zaidi has already found in various transactions.
With their extremely high payroll, the Yankees don’t need to save money by finding these undervalued players. Life is not fair, though, so of course they do a great job in this regard! They do a great job targeting players that simply know how to hit, even if their defensive value is limited (Luke Voit comes to mind).
I would feel guilty to not mention the A’s, who started this market inefficiency. Their “moneyball” teams were built on the foundations of targeting flawed players, particularly those with on-base skills, limited defensive value, and poor body types, while they valued production over traits for pitchers. Even now, they are still built based on these principles.

Looking ahead toward free agency, there are a few players that could be steals. Tommy La Stella, for instance, is one of the top hitters available, but he may overlooked due to his lack of defensive ability. Meanwhile, Jackie Bradley Jr. hits the ball hard, but does so on the ground, while Alex Avila, Joc Pederson, and Shin-Soo Choo have plate discipline that cannot be overlooked. On the pitching side of things, Garrett Richards, Tyler Chatwood, Drew Smyly, and Trevor Cahill all stand out as pitchers who could be maximized in a creative role.

In a perfect world, every major league player would be a flawless physical specimen that could do no wrong. However, the fact that this cannot be the case is what makes baseball so beautiful. In the end, it comes down to understanding which flaws are more significant than others, and from there, you can find plenty of steals on the open market, or in the prospect acquisition process.

As much as we want to project contracts based on consensus projections, so many players have untapped potential based on underlying data, while the fate of prospects is often tied to player development. Thus, knowing what types of players fit your organization’s strengths well is important, and if these players have flaws that are relatively insignificant, then the downside of the acquisition is even less — their “floor” involves them still being a useful player.

In a free agency period that is going to be filled with non-tendered players, I am very intrigued to see if the Rays, Dodgers, Giants, Yankees, and A’s attack this market inefficiency, and encourage everybody to look for the good in players, rather than instantly pointing at the negative. Baseball is a team sport, and if all 26 players can bring some sort of positive contribution to the team, the end result should be a very successful season.