Five Counter Arguments to “Mejia To The Bullpen” Debate - by Stephen Guilbert

Five Counter Arguments to “Mejia To The Bullpen” Debate

Ever since his addition to the Mets bullpen in early 2010, a debate began over whether or not Jenrry Mejia should start or relieve as a major leaguer. Being the top prospect on a major New York sports team, a young, uber-talented starting pitcher and the most hyped youngster in Flushing since Fernando Martinez, Mejia has become the subject of many opinions on his future as a ball player. Some of these are legitimate, others simply inane. Let’s take a look at some of these arguments, starting with the most convincing and ending with the absurd.

1.) “The theory is that putting Mejia in the bullpen would reduce the stress on his arm and shoulder, thereby reducing the injury risk” – Anthony DiComo, mlb.com, 11/28/2011.

Evidence supporting: Tommy John surgery six months ago. Strength: Strong.

Evidence opposing: We will not know the validity of this claim until Mejia starts throwing. Similarly, Dan Warthen, one of the advocates for Mejia in the bullpen, has stated in the past that his throwing motion is “solid and repeatable”. Some pitchers function better on a throwing program that has them throw, say 90-110 pitches every fifth day instead of 8 pitches on Monday, 30 on Tuesday, and not throw again until Sunday, as could happen as a reliever. Whether or not Mejia operates better under a consistent program or a fickle one still remains to be seen.

2.) “We’re seeing right now in the WS the value of the 8th and 9th inning guy and the Mets seem to have neither locked down” – Mack Ade, Mack’s Mets, 10/26/2011.

Evidence supporting: 24 blown saves for the Mets in 2011. 17 in 2010. 21 in 2009. 29 in 2008. The Mets have an unfortunate track record of bullpen inefficiency ever since their playoff run in 2006. The value of 8th and 9th inning dominance, as Mack says, can make a huge difference in the success of a ball club. Strength: Solid.

Evidence opposing: 1.) There is no indication Mejia would be a better reliever than a starter. His 2010 sample size is too small to make a call either way and if you want to anyway, he was not particularly effective. 2.) Bullpens are mercurial beasts. I will place a rather large wager that relievers have more statistical fluctuation from season to season than any position except catcher. Hence, it is easier to add an effective reliever or two through free agency than a strong young starter. 3.) Earlier in Mack’s post, he suggests that there could come a time where Harvey, Wheeler, Familia join Niese, Santana, Gee, Pelfrey, Schwinden as potential Met starters and the need for a reliever might outweigh that of a starter. I agree, but maintain that this is an unlikely, ideal situation. My strongest argument against Mejia as a reliever is this query: Why put a potential ace in the bullpen? Or why put even a #2/#3 22-year-old team-controlled fireballer with a track record of success as a starter… in the bullpen?

3.) “He’s more valuable to the Mets in the short term as a reliever” –paraphrase of Matthew Artus’ review of media reaction of Mejia’s move to the bullpen in early 2010, http://blog.nj.com/mets/2011/02/the_luxury_in_jenrry_mejias_de.html 2/24/2011.

Evidence supporting: Mr. Artus does a nice job in this article of summing up the sense that, when Mejia was moved to the bullpen, it was an agreeable move because it took the Mets best prospect, brought him to the big show, and filled a much needed role. The support was that, well, he was needed and the Mets had an internal option to solve a problem. Strength: Passable at best superficially, very weak under the surface.

Evidence opposing: Consider the thought experiment: Would you rather $1,000 now or $5,000 a year from now? The Mets needed the “money” at the beginning of 2010 but would they have been better off in a year? Yes. People blame Mejia’s injury on his mechanics. There is likely some truth to that claim. However, the back and forth between relieving and starting did not help either. The “win now” mentality had a domino effect not only on Mejia’s development, but fan and media perception of his role, both current and future.

4.) “Mejia might move to the bullpen because he might never have the fastball command or breaking ball control” – Toby Hyde, MetsFever interview, 11/29/2011.

Evidence supporting: 3.9 BB/9 rate in the minors. Strength: Myopic (short-sighted).

Evidence opposing: Minor league career 1.165 WHIP, 2.22 K/bb ratio, 8.7 K/9. In addition, minor leaguers experiment with pitches to learn and improve. Mejia has added and worked on a curve, change, and cutter. He has experimented with different offerings, motions, and sequences to find what is most effective. Taking too close a look at minor league “wildness” is relatively useless. However, if you were to do such a thing, such as Toby has, wouldn’t you also have to look at Zach Wheeler’s 4.7 walks per 9 and come to the same conclusion? If you are going to assign a pitcher to the ‘pen because of lack of control when A.) The pitcher pitched most of his innings before the age of 20, B.) He has been experimenting and C.) You do not do the same for other similarly “wild” starters; you are making a foresighted and uneducated error.

5.) “the reason why I think he's a future closer is he's already injured his elbow and shoulder,his size,arm strength over a full season and he has not mastered any of his secondary pitches” – Joe Di’Orio, Global New York Mets Fan Group, 11/24/2011.

Evidence supporting: Absolutely none. Strength: Should not even be an argument.

Evidence opposing: This is easily the worst argument I have heard for putting Mejia in the bullpen and unfortunately this is not the first (nor will it be the last) time I hear it. I will beat this horse until it is deader than dead until people start listening: There is no correlation between a pitcher’s height and his effectiveness. Read this article if you do not believe me: http://projectprospect.com/article/2008/02/07/scouting-science-does-height-matter-for-mlb-pitchers. The correlation between height and VORP from 2007 was 0.086. The correlation between IP and height was 0.07. You would find stronger correlation between VORP or innings pitched and the pitcher’s birth date. Nay, you would find stronger correlation between the stock market in the second quarter of 2011 and the number of daffodils creeping through the sidewalk of Trenton’s Cass Street in May. I am not even joking. This is just no evidence that supports the claim that taller or heavier pitchers make better or more durable starters. Pedro Martinez and Tim Lincecum are not fascinating specimens, just evidence that mechanics have more to do with longevity and effectiveness than height.

Re: Mastery of secondary pitches. As a teenage hurler, yes this was true. Since his early days in the Mets organization, Mejia has developed a curve, a change, and a cut fastball (although his fastball always had a decent cutting action to it anyway). The Mets minor league pitching instructors did a good job converting Mejia from a thrower with a live fastball to a more diverse pitcher. His secondary pitches are fine and in early 2011, scouts, writers, (even Mack himself on 4/8/11) called his curve and/or cutter “out pitches”.

Conclusion: There is no way anyone can know what Mejia’s future roll will be. In short, it should be determined by Mejia’s reaction to the surgery and how well he throws when he returns. If it does not work then sure—put him in the bullpen. But there is no reason a pitcher with his talent should get bottlenecked into being a closer just because there is need and because he has been used in the bullpen before. When Mejia came to Flushing as a reliever in 2010, a sense of “Hey this guy could be our closer of the future” emerged. That was strengthened after his injury. However, before that point, very few talked about him as anything except a starter. He went from being the next Doc Gooden to the next Mariano. In my opinion, if you have the opportunity for a guy who throws 94-98 MPH with solid secondary offerings, a guy who has a minor league ERA of 2.66 as a starter, a guy who has intensity, age, and the talent all on his side—when you have the opportunity to have this young man start at the front of your rotation for the next decade, you take it. You have to take it.

Let Mejia’s development determine his roll. We simply will not know what to expect until he returns from injury. However, arguments for Mejia as a reliever based on the Mets need, Mejia’s size, talent, or “wildness” simply do not have support.

--Stephen