FanPost

The Don Kelly File: Closed or Not?

Jason Miller/Getty Images

I could have titled this "Don Kelly: Facts and Myths" or DK: Truth and Consequences." But what got me started down this path, besides my healthy skepticism about him in the first place, was an article by Tony Paul that appeared in the January 19, 2015 edition of The Detroit News about Don Kelly's career in Detroit. I thought his article fell way short of telling the whole DK story and I thought I would finish it while setting the record straight.

Examining the collective nonsense about DKB is an intriguing peek inside the Jim Leyland era of Tigers baseball and the press who covered him. In 2014 the public had begun to wise up about Don Kelly to the point that writers and Tigers announcers were apparently getting increasing tweets and emails asking to explain his placement on the team. Tony Paul states in his article that the public had grown tired of his presence and overuse. He writes, "Kelly was loved by the fans for his authentic personality and kindness, though they grew tired of his extensive playing time." His lack of performance was becoming readily apparent to even the casual fan. Don Kelly had some positives, but being a good baseball player was not one of them. His supporters and sycophants in the press claimed he was a "super" utility player who was uniquely versatile, played great defense and was on the team because of his intangibles, whatever those were. There were some questions about DKB that were never addressed or answered in the media. "The nonsense" that built up concerning DK contained a lot of myths and very few facts.

After being drafted and signed by the tigers in 2001, DKB came up in the Tiger minor league system to max out at their Triple-A level as a shortstop and as a utility infielder but was cut by the team in 2006 (yes, Dave Dombrowski and Jim Leyland cut him). He then proceeded to get cut as an infielder from both the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Arizona Diamondbacks. He appeared in 27 games for the Pirates in 2007 in his major league debut as an infielder. He never made it out of Triple-A with the Diamondbacks. So the first big unanswered question is: Why did the Tigers pick him up in 2009 at the advanced age of 29 as a reserve outfielder, after having been cut by three teams (including the Tigers) as a utility infielder? He had a good arm, why didn't one of teams, including the Tigers in 2006, think enough of him to switch him to the outfield? If asked I'm sure the response from team management would probably be that he was picked up for outfield depth in Toledo because he was a left-handed bat. I have a different answer to that question, but before I get to it, a couple observations are in order.

First, utility players are often good enough to make the major leagues at one of their preferred positions, but may get bumped by a better player and moved to, or asked to play, other positions. Usually that occurs because of their superior bat and/or their defensive abilities. Don Kelly was not good enough to make the major leagues at any infield position. What that indicates is that he wasn't good enough with the glove to offset his lack of offense. For example, in 2011 in 281 major league at-bats he had a combined total of only 18 extra base hits. That is approximately one extra base hit for every 15 at-bats. He was basically a singles hitter despite decent speed on the base paths.

That might have been good enough to get him a job in the major leagues if he could have hit for a high average but the records show he didn't accomplish that feat at any level. Here's a big strapping kid at 6'4", 200 pounds, who couldn't hit for power or average. It had to be disappointing and probably explains why teams hadn't moved him to the outfield until the Tigers re-signed him in 2009. At this point most players would have quietly moved on with their lives, but DK was thrown a life preserver instead. The question is why at the advanced age of 29, with "career Triple-A player" written all over him, did the Tigers re-sign him? Let me attempt to give a fair and balanced answer to that question, something the media wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole until Paul's article (but even he pulls his punches).

In the aforementioned January 19th article in The Detroit News, Tony Paul gives us a hint of the untold backstory concerning Don Kelly. To quote Paul: "Leyland, a long-time admirer of Kelly - they're both Pittsburgh residents, and hang out in the offseason..." gives us a hint concerning a Kelly "Pittsburgh" connection which wasn't the usual one cited by Leyland critics. But that's far from the whole story, so let me fill in some of the blanks left untouched by Paul and other members of the media.

In 2007, Kelly married the daughter of Tom Walker whose sons played professional baseball (Neil Walker played second base for the Pirates) and who had pitched for the Tigers in 1975, and who is a lifetime resident of Pittsburgh along with DK. It's just speculation on my part but, if I had to guess, Leyland, Kelly (after his marriage?) and the Walkers all hung out together in the off-season. Leyland's emotional attachment and friendship could easily explain why the Tigers picked up Kelly in 2009 and why they tried to convert him to the outfield even though the other two teams had had the same opportunity and passed on it. Indeed the Tigers had passed on the same opportunity earlier in 2006.

What had changed? Well it wasn't his performance but, I believe, it was the result of whom he was now related to and some new friends he had acquired. Don't misunderstand, I am not against giving friends and family an advantage, it happens all the time in business. So the Tigers decided to give DK another chance at Triple-A Toledo. I would submit that there is something more going on here that helps explain DK's five or six year very improbable big league career. I think Leyland may have seen a little bit of himself in Don Kelly. Leyland, like Kelly, was not good enough to make the majors but he wasn't given the opportunity to prove otherwise. Leyland seemed determined to give Kelly that opportunity.

I think Leyland's' arrogance and stubbornness kicked in at some point too, and could help to explain why DKB wasn't dumped prior to his disastrous 2012 campaign when he was subsequently designated for assignment by the Tigers for hitting only .185. Which was another big question left unanswered by the press. Kelly should have seen his Tigers career, improbable as it was, end at that point. But he was brought back in 2013. The question was: Why didn't it end? I think the answer now is much clearer. The "inside" fix was in at this point because he certainly wasn't kept for his performance or his future upside.

The media's role in the Don Kelly saga is also very interesting to me. The media, not unexpectedly, bought hook line and sinker the PR put out by Leyland and his crew about DKB being some sort of "super" indispensable utility player who added "depth" to the Tigers. Yet, the facts I have uncovered above must have been common knowledge among the various sports writers in the Detroit market. It wouldn't have taken much to uncover the DKB Pittsburgh connections. Any curious reporter with a computer and minimal research could have arrived at a reasonable conclusion that DK was being protected and kept on the team for reasons not entirely related to his baseball performance. I believe several things came into play here. The writers liked Kelly, as did the fans, and he did just enough not to be a total flop. Also, I am sure it would have incurred the wrath of Jim Leyland if pointed questions were directed at him concerning his roster choices. Clearly it would not have been a career enhancement to bring up Kelly's connections and suggest those played a major part in keeping him on the team. It was much easier to just go along with the "super" utility man role facade.

That brings us to the "super" bit concerning DK's career as a so-called "super utility man." It was claimed that DKB could pick up a glove and play anywhere on the field including pitcher and catcher. Of course that is not really good enough, since one has to be a really good player to play any position on the field in the big leagues. And DK wasn't anywhere near that good of a player. The fact is that Kelly spent 75% of his big league experience at only three positions on the field; left field, third base, and first base. Add in right field and you cover 90% of his appearances.

A utility player who can play shortstop or second base as well as an outfield position is considered much more valuable since the middle infield positions are more difficult positions to play. Apparently, despite being drafted to play shortstop and coming up as a utility infielder, Kelly wasn't good enough to play middle infield positions in the big leagues (it was one reason why he was cut by three teams before making it to the major leagues with the Tigers). In fact when asked by a reporter in 2013 if Kelly would be playing shortstop or second base during the season, Leyland replied that he wouldn't be using him there. So the fact is that Kelly was not one of the more valuable or even versatile utility players in the big leagues. He was hardly worthy of the moniker "super."

Wait just a minute his supporters would say, he was so versatile that he could pinch run and was an emergency backup catcher. OK, that's pretty versatile, now isn't it? Not really. Kelly only caught in one game in his career (and only pitched to one batter for that matter). In fact it is true that most big league players are emergency catchers if circumstances arise and that applies to pinch running also. Kelly didn't have Quintin Berry speed or base stealing abilities. A lot of big league players are good base runners, and Kelly had good speed, but he was not an exceptional base runner. He also turned out to be a really poor pinch hitter too. In addition to not hitting for power or average, he was hitless in his last two years as a pinch hitter. In short, there just was not anything "super" about Kelly's utility role, and over the last two or three years his presence on the bench made it much weaker.

Oh yeah?! His supporters might retort at this point. He was great defensively even if he didn't play everywhere very often. My reply would be that that was just another PR myth about DK that simply was not true. Make no mistake about it, he was often used as a defensive replacement, especially in left field and at third base. If he could have hit, left field might have been his best position, and the numbers suggest he was slightly above average defensively both in left field and third base. If you watched him play left field, you would have realized that while he wasn't a Delmon Young statue out there, he wasn't exactly scintillating with the glove either. In fact, his defensive appearances may have been more of a reflection on how poor the players were he replaced than a comment on his superior defensive abilities.

So, the bottom line is that there was nothing "super" about his defensive role because he was only average or adequate at the positions he played. At this point, it was obvious that his abilities didn't warrant a five or six year survival rate with the Tigers, but survive he did, and made $4.4 million while doing it. Not too shabby, I might add. I think it's quite clear why he survived and it had little or nothing to do with his baseball talents. Yes he had "intangibles" and was somewhat versatile, but that shouldn't have been enough, but in his case it was.

The "pink elephant" in the room concerning DKB, is did his presence on the team have any adverse impact on the Tigers drive for a World Series banner? At this point, his supporters would probably begin to laugh and bring out their knee-jerk reactions to any DKB criticism; "He was only the 25th player on the team and all teams have a Don Kelly type on them. Oh, and there was that home run against the Yankees and a sac fly against the A's" etc., etc. etc.

Their rationale could best be summed up by another quote from Paul's article: "The Tigers long have had a soft spot for Kelly, given his versatility, and his ability to play quality defense and provide the occasional big hit." Yes, as I have covered above, Leyland and the Tigers had a soft spot for Kelly and he was on a limited basis "versatile." However, he often failed with the bat except for a couple notable exceptions. What impact did his presence on the bench have on their playoff runs in 2013 and 2014 (remember, he was not on the 2012 playoff team, because he had been DFA'd)? One could speculate endlessly, however there is no doubt his presence weakened the bench and limited the options available to the coach as situations demanded certain effective substitutions. Was it a critical weakness? That is anyone's guess.

Before excoriating me for writing the above please keep in mind that my purpose was not to disparage the career of Don Kelly, but rather to set the record straight and correct some of the nonsense that had built up around his career. In all fairness, Kelly had two decent years in 2010 and 2011 when the Tigers had a distinct lack of outfield depth and his ability to play first base and third base was an advantage. By all reports he was a good teammate, had a good work ethic and a great attitude, but DK's run with the Tigers should have ended in spring training in 2012. With the acquisition of Prince Fielder moving Cabrera to third base, Kelly's versatility such as it was, was no longer needed and Quintin Berry should have beat him out. However his performance during 2012 that resulted in his being waived not once but twice should have definitely ended his career, but didn't. He was at best a fringe or marginal big league player who rightfully should have never survived to play five or six years in the major leagues. He turned the "fog" and nonsense about his abilities, aided and abetted by a compliant media and a friendship with management into an improbable big league career and make $4.4 million while doing it. More power to him, my hat's off to him, but in all honesty I am not that disappointed to see him go, and my guess is I am not alone

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the <em>Bless You Boys</em> writing staff.