A spectacular bat or a blazing fastball can attract attention, but one standout number does not guarantee a player helps a team win. In a conversation about college baseball recruiting, coaches Eric Johnson and Aaron Thigpen argue that a player’s weaknesses matter because they can limit the value of even an impressive strength.

The goal is not to become exceptional at everything. It is to understand what a team needs from a player, develop the abilities that matter most, and keep weaknesses from becoming liabilities.

A coach may accept a weakness if a player’s standout skill produces enough value to make the trade-off worthwhile. Johnson gives the example of a hitter whose defense is a concern: the bat has to produce reliably enough that the team can justify keeping him in the lineup.

But a strength that appears only occasionally is harder to build around. If the hitting drops off, the defensive weakness remains, and the player may no longer offer enough to offset it. Johnson says a more balanced player—one who contributes at the plate, in the field, on the bases, and as a teammate—can be the safer choice.

The same reasoning applies elsewhere on the field. A catcher may remain valuable even with a modest batting average if he runs the pitching staff, calls a good game, frames pitches, and controls the running game. A strong defensive player who prevents runs can contribute without being a major hitter. The right standard depends on the position and the role.

As Johnson puts it, “I think each position has a threshold.” Coaches are evaluating not just whether an athlete has a weakness, but whether it undermines what the team needs that athlete to do.

Thigpen warns that athletes can get caught up chasing visible metrics, such as exit velocity or pitching velocity, while neglecting less glamorous parts of performance. A number may look impressive on a leaderboard without translating into more hits, runs, or outs.

Johnson describes working with hitters whose exit velocity was already high. Their training focus was not to raise it further, but to make more consistent contact with the barrel. Hitting the ball extremely hard once does not compensate for repeatedly missing it. The aim is to turn existing power into dependable production.

Pitching offers a similar example. Johnson contrasts a pitcher who throws hard but struggles to find the strike zone with one who throws at a lower velocity, has movement, and consistently gets outs. The second pitcher may be more useful to a team because the performance is repeatable.

Metrics can help athletes understand their abilities, but a target number should not become the whole definition of progress. The practical question is whether the skill is producing results in competition.

Thigpen suggests that athletes be specific when assessing a weakness. It is not enough to say, “I’m weak at this.” The more useful question is whether that weakness could hurt the team in the athlete’s position.

A limitation does not always need to become a strength. An athlete may not be able to turn a lack of speed into an advantage, but could improve enough that speed is no longer a liability. That distinction helps players direct their effort toward what will actually change a coach’s evaluation.

It also keeps development realistic. Thigpen notes that athletes have limited time and resources, and their training should reflect their role. A player does not need to pursue every benchmark simply because it appears on a leaderboard. First establish and maintain the baseline needed for the position; then spend time on other areas that can improve overall performance.

Both coaches emphasize that improvement requires facing uncomfortable feedback. Athletes need to recognize what they do well, but also be willing to hear what coaches or recruiters see as a concern. Admitting a weakness is not a verdict on a player’s potential. It is the starting point for deciding what to work on.

That process depends on trust and commitment from the athlete. Johnson also says parents need to allow coaches and training professionals to guide the work rather than steering every decision toward visible strengths or headline numbers.

A standout tool can open a door, but consistent contribution helps a player stay valuable. Athletes should keep their strengths sharp while bringing weaknesses up to a level that does not cost the team. The most useful training goal is not the most impressive number; it is becoming a more dependable player in the role they hope to earn.