Chris Withrow vs Jenrry Mejia
From what I've read, Meija throws a mid to high 90s fastball with a splitter/change in the high 80s. His command of the change/splitter needs work but it can be a plus pitch at times, and I think he might also have a curve as a 3rd pitch. His strikeout rate is very good and his groundball rates are excellent. One of the concerns is that he is a little guy (6 feet), so the questions of bullpen v starting will continue until a role is defined. As for Withrow, I will admit that I dont know too much about him. He seems to be getting a lot of hype on this board. He has shown strong k rates, but walks appear to be a problem with him. Some have mentioned AJ Burnett and Josh Beckett as possible comps, which leads me to believe that he must have a really good fastball/curveball combo. Can you guys tell me more about Withrow?
Anyways, who do you believe is the better pitching prospect and why? Potential upsides?
Thanks.
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't think its that close...
right now. Mejia has much more upside in my opinion. I think he is a better prospect than Neftali Feliz was at that age and they are similar pitchers. Mejia could be the next Martnez if everything goes right and Withrow won’t come close to that.
Voted Mejia
Not sure its that close, either… but I, too, would like to hear a little more about Withrow.
Meijia isn’t without his flaws/question marks, but his ceiling is undeniably high.
Withrow (short scouting report)
92-94 FB that he can pump up to the high 90’s. Power CB. CU needs work and isn’t reliable…yet. clean mechanics and good athlete (would have been a 2 way player at Baylor had he went to college). Has control issues though he seemed to improve on that some in the 2nd half of last year.
lol
as a met fan i hate to say this…but i agree
Guys, can I just say
That height has little to nothing to do with a pitcher’s success rate. I won’t bore you with details, but for a physics class, I did an in depth study of pitcher success rates in correlation to height, and it really doesn’t matter. So his height shouldn’t be a factor
You’re name has 2k9 in it — what are you some 8 year-old who makes Pillsbury Doughboy cookies and jerks off to that bullshit video game with Tim Lincecum on the cover--
Frederick0220
Put it up somewhere so we can read it.
No snark. I’d just like to see it.
exactly
the attrition rate of the small in the minors has to be ridiculous compared to the bigger guys IMHO.
I just got on twitter.Follow me at http://twitter.com/JDSussman
I'll be trying to post lines and analysis as much as possible.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
I'm sure that's true.
The guys with “pitcher’s bodies” get a significantly longer rope from their organizations.
Both, I'll try to find some of the data and throw it up here after my midterms
I synthesized Pitch f/x data as well as statistics. Guys who are shorter throw just as hard, and also achieve just as much break on their pitches. I did not look at attrition, which might be an interesting concept to potentially expand it further on.
You’re name has 2k9 in it — what are you some 8 year-old who makes Pillsbury Doughboy cookies and jerks off to that bullshit video game with Tim Lincecum on the cover--
Frederick0220
FWIW
Generally, the guys who tend to have injuries and blow out their arms are guys who tend to have unnecessary torque in their windups. Ignore Lincecum, because he is a freak of nature who throw off all conventional data, but in terms of pure physical concepts, I would almost expect larger guys to suffer from more arm related injuries. Their arms are traveling further (although it may seem a small distance, it truly does change the energy they exert), and therefore, are seemingly generating more force on their shoulders, elbows, et al. I know everyone speaks about a projectable frame, etc, but as a former pitcher (who wound up tearing his rotator cuff, fwiw haha) I can say that these guys are generating 90% of their power from their legs. If anything, a more compact guy would generate higher velocities. Muscle mass for pitchers in their upper torso is really somewhat irrelevant (other than their core), because it actually only adds unnecessary bulk to their frames.
You’re name has 2k9 in it — what are you some 8 year-old who makes Pillsbury Doughboy cookies and jerks off to that bullshit video game with Tim Lincecum on the cover--
Frederick0220
I was just about to post a fanpost requesting info on this subject.
It seems like an old wives tale that short guys are more injury prone. I haven’t seen any studies of it one way or the other, and I would LOVE to see a study. If you could post your study I would love to read it!
I mean, if we look at some of the past Cy Young winners alone (I know, it's a stupid award, but still)
2009: Lincecum 5’ 2’’ (ha) Greinke 6’ 2’’
2008: Lincecum 4’ 10’’ Cliff Lee 6’ 3’’
2007: Jake Peavy 6’ 1’’ C.C. Sabathia 6’ 7’’
2006: Brandon Webb 6’ 2’’ Johan Santana 6’ 0’’
It’s a crapshoot.
You’re name has 2k9 in it — what are you some 8 year-old who makes Pillsbury Doughboy cookies and jerks off to that bullshit video game with Tim Lincecum on the cover--
Frederick0220
Lincecum grew 3 inches in a year in his 20s, amazing
He must have lied about his age……….or weed must make you grow like one.
by tdot mariner fan on Dec 10, 2009 2:43 AM EST up reply actions
Mejia's delivery isn't violent.
He fixed most of the quirks from last year.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
I feel like every time there's a mejia thread
I need to go find those quotes from multiple sources explaining that he has a pitchers frame and his delivery is fine…well no more. I’m done.
I was just speculating
I am very interested in reading what you found. It just seems from what you’re saying its going to be the answer to the question “Are shorter MLB pitchers be as effective as taller ones?” or something like that, more than “Are shorter pitching prospects as likely to reach the majors/be successful as taller ones?”
Ok, those are both phrased inelegantly, but Im not going to waste time on that, since Im sure you see my point. I don’t think the baseball intelligencia questions whether smaller stature pitchers can succeed in the majors – clearly, they can and represent some of the best pitchers (Pedro, Billy Wagner, countless others…).
Basically, if we phrase it in terms of odds of success, I would wager being bigger in stature increases one’s chances of making the majors as a pitching prospect.
Yeah, I'll definitely try to get it all together into a coherent post by the new year
since I’m assraped by Wesleyan University at the moment haha
You’re name has 2k9 in it — what are you some 8 year-old who makes Pillsbury Doughboy cookies and jerks off to that bullshit video game with Tim Lincecum on the cover--
Frederick0220
"Projectable Frame"
I don’t know if your study incorporated this issue or not.
However, there is clearly a scouting bias amongst prospect pundits with regards to a “projectable frame”. Take 2 hypothectical elite prep pitchers. They are both 18 years old. They both have “clean” mechanics and throw 90-92 mph FB’s and have “developing” secondary pitches. Pitcher A is 6’4", 190 lbs and Pitcher B is 6’0" and 170 lbs. Pitcher A is invariably cited by pundits as having a “projectable frame” that is likely to add ~ 3mph to his average FB, while Pitcher B is not. Is there any validity to this “bias”?
Fat man is no more,
Bursting on through Heaven's Door
Come on in, says Bill
Yes there is. As the taller pitcher grows into his frame he adds more muscle mass, thus making it more possible for him to throw harder. IMO a good example of this is in the upcoming 2010 draft. Cam Bedrosian has excellent stuff, but he is only 6’ tall, so even though his fastball is already in the low to mid 90’s and has a plus curve, he is mentioned as being a late first rounder compared to AJ Cole who has a low- mid 90 fastball with much lesser secondaries and he is being considered as a possible top 5 pick.
This is not saying that a guy who is 6’ tall cannot add another tick to his fastball, but when comparing the probability of it actually happening, you see the taller projectable kid normally does add some fastball velo. The question is, how much does he add on?
Another thing to throw in there though is that its not only questions about projection when a kid is 6’ tall as a pitcher, but the durability issues also as mentioned knock the pitcher down a peg. Jameson Taillon is listed at 6’7 and is considered physically mature(maxxed out) with no projection, yet he is still considered the best prep arm.
That doesn't mean the bias is valid.
We all know that the teams drafting believe that a taller player is more likely to add velocity. Anecdotally noting that taller pitchers seem to do it more often isn’t proof. As you said yourself, shorter pitchers add velocity as well. The question is, what would the answer be if we empirically measured whether the bias is true?
That's not always true though
First off, much of pitching has little to do with muscle mass, but rather has to do with training your muscles to withstand the wear and tear of performing an action hundreds of time that is, by all accounts, a movement that is unnatural for the arm to make. Once I eventually make my post about this thing, you’ll see that there is not much correlation between a “projectable frame” and success. For every C.C. Sabathia, there is a Jon Rauch. Talk about a projectable frame on that guy
You’re name has 2k9 in it — what are you some 8 year-old who makes Pillsbury Doughboy cookies and jerks off to that bullshit video game with Tim Lincecum on the cover--
Frederick0220
mejia's movement on his FB
is what sets him apart.
and i love withrow… probably more than most, had him top 50 prospects… but if Mejia is incredibly special
Withrow
Went the other way on this one and went with Withrow. Sure Mejia’s got a good fastball, but he has yet to develop a second out pitch and Withrow also throws heat. While both may end up in the pen, I’d say Withrow’s closer to a sure thing than Mejia.
Withrow might end up in the pen?
thats the first time i heard someone say that..
BA
said that he has an above average curve ball but both the curve and his fastball lacks command. His change-up is a work in progress.
No one said he is going to the pen, but if you have a good fastball, and a secondary offering that lacks command than that’s a ticket to the pen, imo. Obviously if he can harness his control and develop his change-up than his chances for success are better.
Right now, I like his chances of at least being given the opportunity to start more than Mejia.
well
i don’t see the difference in secondary stuff that you mentioned above. you said withrow throws a good curve but can’t locate it, mejia also throws a good curve but also can’t locate it. it’s been characterized as a hammer curve with late break, having plus potential, so i wouldn’t say he has no second pitch.
beyond that mejia is a year younger at the same level, with a better fastball so i’d go w/ mejia here. however, withrow is definitely intriguing and i have to admit this is closer than i initially thought.
by Rob Castellano on Dec 9, 2009 8:58 PM EST up reply actions
i've read that
but it’s tough for me to buy into a change that runs 87-89 (which many seem to mistake as a splitter due to the speed). though i guess when your fb lives at 95 you can do that.
and i guess that speaks to the inconsistency of his curve.
by Rob Castellano on Dec 10, 2009 6:49 PM EST up reply actions
There's more to changeup than speed
Especially for developing players. Based on reports, Mejia seems to command the changeup better, he has good armspeed on it, and he manipulates movement on it well. The curve is probably more of a nasty wipeout kind of pitch, but he has some trouble repeating it.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 11, 2009 3:51 AM EST up reply actions
From KG
I asked this question to KG today:
Rhys26 (Kansas City): A debate’s been raging on another site, as to who is the better prospect, Chris Withrow or Jenry Mejia? I say both may wind-up in the pen, if they don’t develop better secondary offerings. Care to weigh in?
Kevin Goldstein: I think you’re first comment there is VERY accurate. I like them both quite a bit — there’s no slam dunk obviously better one.
if you're interested in mejia
i wrote a prospect smackdown over at amazin avenue a couple months back pitting jenrry mejia v. kyle drabek here.
definitely some good in-depth mejia info in there. keep in mind it was before the season’s end, the fall league, etc. i meant to post it here too but never got around to it.
by Rob Castellano on Dec 9, 2009 9:04 PM EST up reply actions
Honestly, I can't see much, if anything, to put Withrow above Mejia.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
How about: Withrow’s a better athlete, Withrow has better mechanics, Withrow has more remaining physical projection, Withrow has a better breaking ball, Withrow had a better K rate…
They’re both great prospects and I can actually see an argument for choosing either of them over the other one, it’s definitely not a “slam dunk” in Mejia’s favor.

by 













