Kenny Rogers

[catbox_9]

Watching Chad Durbin pitch for Detroit really made me miss Kenny Rogers. He's obviously not a HOFer but I think he deserves to make the ballot at least. I'd say on his first ballot he'll get somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.0-4.5% and then be kicked off the ballot. He's got over 200 wins and a perfecto so that's got to be worth something.

I'll gues 4.25%....anyone dare to go higher?
Also, there's a poll if you feellike voting.

[Cougar]

I think it's more likely than not he won't get a single vote. Nor should he.

[nerfan]

Kenny Rogers...

is a Hall of Famer.

Country Music HoFer that is.

But the baseball Kenny Rogers is comparable to Jaime Moyer. Not great, but good over a long time. He's a four-time All-Star (with 3 in his last 3 years)- and never really had a peak. His five best seasons are 1995, 1998, 2002, 2005, and 2006. Surprisingly, he finished fifth in Cy Young balloting in 2006, probably his fifth best season. Never really a strikeout pitcher, his career high being 140 (1993, 1995) and racking up 1850 over his career. He's pitched well in old age- he's won 49 games over the past three years in his late thirties and forties.

He does own 36 CG and 9 SHO, good numbers for his time period.

But all this analysis is not really that meaningful, because a 110 ERA+ makes not a HoF pitcher. Besides, even Moyer has more K's than Rogers, and he throws 80 MPH.

[Colorado Express]

I can't see him ever receiving >5%.

[Dodgerfan1]

I said 10-25% ONLY because there are some pretty lame voters who seem to have hidden agendas who have voted for some pretty undeserving players in the past, and I wouldn't put it past them to vote for Rogers for the Hall. Not sure what the point of the question is. We can throw any above areage pitcher's name in a poll like this. I think the actual answer SHOULD be 0%, but that would be making too much sense for some of the HOF voters.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I said 10-25% ONLY because there are some pretty lame voters who seem to have hidden agendas who have voted for some pretty undeserving players in the past, and I wouldn't put it past them to vote for Rogers for the Hall. Not sure what the point of the question is. We can throw any above areage pitcher's name in a poll like this. I think the actual answer SHOULD be 0%, but that would be making too much sense for some of the HOF voters.

That's about 50 votes minimum. I don't see it, based on how pitchers like Bret Saberhagen and Orel Hershiser have done in the recent past. Perhaps it is you with the agenda against the voters, but that is simply not going to happen.
Rogers has done very well of late, but, outside of this past season in Detroit, he doesn't have a stellar reputation. The argument is there for Rogers being a top-10 pitcher of his era, but at the back end of that. You might call him a lesser Kevin Brown. A bit less.

[KCGHOST]

Well, if he retires and avoids the "ineligible List" he will be on the ballot. My guess is he gets enough votes to stay on a couple years before vanishing.

[catbox_9]

While I agree that he is by no means a HOFer, I do think he deserves to stay on the ballot for a while and end up with a decent amount of votes. It's common knowledge that W-L isn't that great of a stat, but he does have over 200 of them mostly with average teams. Also, his wins total could have been higher but he has 288 relief appearances. If he would have been a starter the whole time he'd of had at least 50 more starts and given his career winning % of .598 (which isn't bad) he could have had 30 more wins which would give him 237 and an a decent chance at 250. He also has (or would have had had he been a full-time starter) a shot at 2000 K's which by no means puts him up there with the all-time greats but is an adequate number nonetheless especially for a pitcher like him (although Maddux has over 3000 and he's a similar pitcher). He has 28 saves which should count for something (although not much). In 1995 he was 17-7 and if not for the strike could have possibly won 20 games.

Also, as previously mentioned he's a 4 time all-star but he also has 5 gold gloves (which don't mean much, ask Kaat). His black and gray ink scores are nowhere near HOF numbers although his HOF standards and HOF monitor are more than 60% of the way there. Lastly, as my first post menioned, he pitched a perfect game. While it's true that it's only one game not many guys have done that and that right there might give him an extra vote....if I was a voter I'd vote for a perfect game pitcher on his first ballot regardless of the rest of his career. The following year I'd actually evaluate him.

He won't get in but I guess I shouldn't care because he wouldn't wear a Tigers hat anyways. I think current Tiger Ivan Rodriguez is a lock for the HOF though. Now if we could win a couple championships for him maybe he'd consider wearing a Tigers cap (12 seasons in TEX, this will be his 4th in DET....unless he gets to at least 6-7 here there's no way he should even consider it).

[The Dude]

I don't think I could put it any better than Catbox did. Those are the exact reasons I voted 5-10%. I think there's enough votes who recognize what he has accomplished and what else he would have accomplished. However, I don't think heis totals will ever be that high due to his media presence.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Well, if he retires and avoids the "ineligible List" he will be on the ballot. My guess is he gets enough votes to stay on a couple years before vanishing.

I was LOL when I saw this, but when I looked at Rogers' stats, it seems less ridiculous.

Rogers would probably be one and done if he retired today. He's a guy who actually has a bit of a case (although I would not vote for him, based on what he's done to date). He's won 207 games (going over 200 was a biggie for him. He's made 3 straight All-Star appearances (4 total). More importantly, he's actually gotten to the point where he's one of the best pitchers in the American League. This is pretty mind-boggling, but Kenny Rogers has been, over the last 3 years, been one of the top 4-5 starters in the AL.

I doubt Rogers could keep it going long enough to get to 300 wins. If he did, he'd go in, but he's 42 this year, so this is not likely. 250 wins is not out of the question. So what if he posts 2 more big seasons on the way to 250 wins?

It's still probably not enough. Rogers will probably never win 20, although with overall wins totals way down, that won't hurt as much as I once thought it would. I think his maximum potential is to get to the point where he can stay on the ballot for the full 15 years, and he may well do that.

Rogers has a big plus and a big negative. His big plus is the fact that he's finishing strong; strong finishers seem to do better with HOF voters than fast starters who peter out and hang on. His big negative is his run-in with the media (the incident with a photographer). This will be held against him come voting time; why else is Albert Belle done on the ballot?

A better question is: Can Rogers craft out a career that is, on balance, Hall-worthy, given his current age? I think he possibly can, but the chances of that are low. He's one major injury away from retirement (as are all 42 year old players pretty much). But if he has 3 more All-Star caliber seasons in a row, well, that would be a big deal.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't think I could put it any better than Catbox did.

I concur with this. Rogers really has had a heckuva career; much more so than what was predicted of him when he first came up.

I was thinking that Rogers was the new Milt Pappas. Rogers' victory totals are more impressive in the context of his time, as is his ERA.

One of the arguments against Rogers (and Jamie Moyer) is why them, and not Wes Ferrell, whose numbers, for his time, were greater.

[2Chance]

He could make 5%, but I doubt it.

OK, so he had a chance to shine in the 2006 postseason. Did that do Jack Morris any good in 1991?


BTW, postseason numbers are never going to mean squat to the voters. The only thing that matters in that regard is the World Series. I agree with CCN: His being an (arguably) top ten pitcher during his career probably won't get him anywhere.

[Cougar]

A better question is: Can Rogers craft out a career that is, on balance, Hall-worthy, given his current age? I think he possibly can, but the chances of that are low. He's one major injury away from retirement (as are all 42 year old players pretty much). But if he has 3 more All-Star caliber seasons in a row, well, that would be a big deal.

He's got a major injury right now -- he's out 3-4 months with a blood clot in his throwing shoulder. Even though it's not mechanical, it's time on the shelf, plus it precludes him having a productive season in 2007. And if it recurs, it'll pretty much force retirement.

[yankillaz]

I think that Kenny Rogers has accomplished everything he's ever dreamed off. But too bado for him...the HOF isn't in it. Nor even gettint past the first ballot.

[Skin & Bones]

Hitting a cameraman doesn't help his chances, neither does using pinetar.

Regardless of that, I don't think be belongs.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He's got a major injury right now -- he's out 3-4 months with a blood clot in his throwing shoulder. Even though it's not mechanical, it's time on the shelf, plus it precludes him having a productive season in 2007. And if it recurs, it'll pretty much force retirement.

It that's true, he's probably done as a star.

He'll never do enough to get there. Really, he's now a matter of "If Dennis Martinez isn't in the HOF, why Kenny Rogers?"

He'll probably be one and done, but you never know.

[538280]

He's obviously not a HOFer but I think he deserves to make the ballot at least.

I've heard a lot of people say things like this before and I still just don't get it, if a guy is so obviously not a HOFer, what's the point of hoping that people will vote for him? If he's obviously not a HOFer, why does he deserve even 5%? The point of the HOF ballot is not and should not be to just vote for someone because you want them to be appreciated, because you thought they were underrated. It's asking if you're a HOFer or if you're not a HOFer. IMO, there is no (or there shouldn't be) any "he's not a HOFer but he deserved to at least make the first cut". I don't get that, if he's obviously not a HOFer, and everyone can tell that (as is the case with Rogers, even though he has had a very good career) then he shouldn't get any votes.

[STLCards2]

I've heard a lot of people say things like this before and I still just don't get it, if a guy is so obviously not a HOFer, what's the point of hoping that people will vote for him? If he's obviously not a HOFer, why does he deserve even 5%? The point of the HOF ballot is not and should not be to just vote for someone because you want them to be appreciated, because you thought they were underrated. It's asking if you're a HOFer or if you're not a HOFer. IMO, there is no (or there shouldn't be) any "he's not a HOFer but he deserved to at least make the first cut". I don't get that, if he's obviously not a HOFer, and everyone can tell that (as is the case with Rogers, even though he has had a very good career) then he shouldn't get any votes.

Absolutely.:dance :dance :dance

And if a guy isn't good enough to be voted in on their first year, they shouldn't be good enough fifteen years later. Who is on the ballot with them shouldn't matter. Either they are good enough or they aren't.

[Pine Tar]

I've heard a lot of people say things like this before and I still just don't get it, if a guy is so obviously not a HOFer, what's the point of hoping that people will vote for him? If he's obviously not a HOFer, why does he deserve even 5%? The point of the HOF ballot is not and should not be to just vote for someone because you want them to be appreciated, because you thought they were underrated. It's asking if you're a HOFer or if you're not a HOFer. IMO, there is no (or there shouldn't be) any "he's not a HOFer but he deserved to at least make the first cut". I don't get that, if he's obviously not a HOFer, and everyone can tell that (as is the case with Rogers, even though he has had a very good career) then he shouldn't get any votes.

By that logic, there would be no reason to be put on the ballot at all.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I've heard a lot of people say things like this before and I still just don't get it, if a guy is so obviously not a HOFer, what's the point of hoping that people will vote for him? If he's obviously not a HOFer, why does he deserve even 5%? The point of the HOF ballot is not and should not be to just vote for someone because you want them to be appreciated, because you thought they were underrated. It's asking if you're a HOFer or if you're not a HOFer. IMO, there is no (or there shouldn't be) any "he's not a HOFer but he deserved to at least make the first cut". I don't get that, if he's obviously not a HOFer, and everyone can tell that (as is the case with Rogers, even though he has had a very good career) then he shouldn't get any votes.

It's called recognition, which actually means a lot to the people who play the game. It's the same reason why they give people watches after retiring, why there are plaques on the walls of businesses with people's names on them after various degrees of success. . To acknowledge a solid career, thanks, you're actually more than just some numbers in some book somewhere, you are a human being who did his job and while you may not be worthy of the sport's greatest honor, you as a person and not some random letters next to random numbers deserve to get some credit for showing up for a while. No harm in that, is there?

[Fuzzy Bear]

And if a guy isn't good enough to be voted in on their first year, they shouldn't be good enough fifteen years later. Who is on the ballot with them shouldn't matter. Either they are good enough or they aren't.

By that logic, Eddie Mathews wouldn't be a HOFer. Nor would Gary Carter, Ryne Sandberg, or Yogi Berra.

[Dodgerfan1]

It's called recognition, which actually means a lot to the people who play the game. It's the same reason why they give people watches after retiring, why there are plaques on the walls of businesses with people's names on them after various degrees of success. . To acknowledge a solid career, thanks, you're actually more than just some numbers in some book somewhere, you are a human being who did his job and while you may not be worthy of the sport's greatest honor, you as a person and not some random letters next to random numbers deserve to get some credit for showing up for a while. No harm in that, is there?

No, there's no real harm in it, but no point to it, either. People who get gold watches when they retire are ostensibly given one because they deserve it. People like Rogers, and others, who are nominated for the HOF, do NOT deserve it. It's pointless. It's 'throw-the-dog-a-bone' logic, and it doesn't mean anything. It's purely symbolic. I get the 'touchy-feely' aspect of that, but reality has nothing to do with it.

If it makes you feel good that he's on the ballot, more power to you. I get what Chris is saying though, and I agree (and have said so elsewhere.) Then there's the possibility that there are voters who actually BELIEVE Rogers, and others like him, deserve HOF status. That's pretty sad. No, it isn't harming anyone to nominate Rogers, but it also cheapens the process, IMO. For every vote for someone who is undeserving, a vote is being ignored for someone who is.

[Captain Cold Nose]

No, there's no real harm in it, but no point to it, either. People who get gold watches when they retire are ostensibly given one because they deserve it. People like Rogers, and others, who are nominated for the HOF, do NOT deserve it. It's pointless. It's 'throw-the-dog-a-bone' logic, and it doesn't mean anything. It's purely symbolic. I get the 'touchy-feely' aspect of that, but reality has nothing to do with it.

If it makes you feel good that he's on the ballot, more power to you. I get what Chris is saying though, and I agree (and have said so elsewhere.) Then there's the possibility that there are voters who actually BELIEVE Rogers, and others like him, deserve HOF status. That's pretty sad. No, it isn't harming anyone to nominate Rogers, but it also cheapens the process, IMO. For every vote for someone who is undeserving, a vote is being ignored for someone who is.

But it's just a nomination. A judo for a fine career. It is not an endorsement for actual HOF enshrinement. How is that cheapening the process? No grossly undeserving player has been kept on the ballot the last few years. If anything, the exact opposite of what you seem to be worried about is true. Players are getting bounced too early, and are not receiving ample support. You say there's a possibility of voters casting unwarranted votes, but the evidence doesn't back that up.
Recognizing people for their accomplishments is not pointless. It's certainly not as bad as totally ignoring the very human factors involved with the sport, the nomination, the reason for the HOF, and reducing it to some robotized, unfeeling data warehouse. That's not what it is and that's not what baseball is.

[STLCards2]

By that logic, Eddie Mathews wouldn't be a HOFer. Nor would Gary Carter, Ryne Sandberg, or Yogi Berra.

I am refering to the voter more than the system. If I think Gossage belongs in the Hall of Fame, I am going to vote for him. If he is going up against Ripken and Gwynn, I vote him in...because he belongs. If he is going up against "only" Hershiser and Albert Belle, I vote him in...because he belongs. If he is going up against Maddux, Clemens, Bonds, Johnson, Glavine, Thomas, Biggo, and Piazza, I vote for him...because he belongs. All of this, "I will wait until he is up against a weaker class" stuff is wrong in my opinion. Or, "I will just wait until his last year." What? Did he become a better player after being retired 20 years than he was after 10? That is what I was referring too. I did not mean to make it sound like if a guy wasn't selected first ballot (Mathews, Berra, etc.) that they shouldn't have been voted in.

Willie McGee is an idol in this town. People name their children after Willie in this town, and I have never heard a single person make reference to, "man, I am so glad he got 5% of the vote only to get knocked off next year." I don't think the players care either. The gys who are close (Blyleven, Dawson, Rice, etc.) do care. The Willie McGees don't lose any sleep over the 5% and stay on the ballot thing. But ultimately it is all small potatoes. If they want to put Aaron Miles on the Hall ballot someday....who cares? Nobody will vote for him. What harm does it do? It realy isn't to big of a deal, I guess. The problem, as Chris was saying, is when people vote for people to show appreciation, even if they don't deserve election. Nobody should vote for anything, anywhere if they don't think they deserve it. That is common sense.

[catbox_9]

I am refering to the voter more than the system. If I think Gossage belongs in the Hall of Fame, I am going to vote for him. If he is going up against Ripken and Gwynn, I vote him in...because he belongs. If he is going up against "only" Hershiser and Albert Belle, I vote him in...because he belongs. If he is going up against Maddux, Clemens, Bonds, Johnson, Glavine, Thomas, Biggo, and Piazza, I vote for him...because he belongs. All of this, "I will wait until he is up against a weaker class" stuff is wrong in my opinion. Or, "I will just wait until his last year." What? Did he become a better player after being retired 20 years than he was after 10? That is what I was referring too. I did not mean to make it sound like if a guy wasn't selected first ballot (Mathews, Berra, etc.) that they shouldn't have been voted in.

Willie McGee is an idol in this town. People name their children after Willie in this town, and I have never heard a single person make reference to, "man, I am so glad he got 5% of the vote only to get knocked off next year." I don't think the players care either. The gys who are close (Blyleven, Dawson, Rice, etc.) do care. The Willie McGees don't lose any sleep over the 5% and stay on the ballot thing. But ultimately it is all small potatoes. If they want to put Aaron Miles on the Hall ballot someday....who cares? Nobody will vote for him. What harm does it do? It realy isn't to big of a deal, I guess. The problem, as Chris was saying, is when people vote for people to show appreciation, even if they don't deserve election. Nobody should vote for anything, anywhere if they don't think they deserve it. That is common sense.


I agree 100% with what you just said. The only way I wouldn't vote a guy in if I think he's a HOFer would be if there were 10 other players who I thought were even more deserving. Other than the first few ballots, there have been few if any ballots where that's the case so if a guy is good enough on his 15th try, he's good enough on the first.

[538280]

It's called recognition, which actually means a lot to the people who play the game. It's the same reason why they give people watches after retiring, why there are plaques on the walls of businesses with people's names on them after various degrees of success. . To acknowledge a solid career, thanks, you're actually more than just some numbers in some book somewhere, you are a human being who did his job and while you may not be worthy of the sport's greatest honor, you as a person and not some random letters next to random numbers deserve to get some credit for showing up for a while. No harm in that, is there?

The HOF ballot is not the place to give good but not great players recognition or a pat on the back. That is for the franchises to do. Maybe give a guy who had a good career a little going out prize or something when he retires. Maybe the Rangers should have some sort of exhibit in their stadium which honors some of the best Rangers of all time, and Kenny Rogers could be in there as he probably is one of the best pitchers the Rangers have ever had (along with Charlie Hough, and probably a few others who I can't think of now) The HOF ballot is to recognize the best players ever and put them in the HOF, it's not, IMO, the place for recognizing someone for a good, but clearly not HOF, career. The only reason why we consider being kept on past the first ballot some sort of honor is because of the ridiculousness on the BBWAA's part of throwing out votes to players of similar credentials to a Kenny Rogers in the past. If it wasn't for that we'd realize that a number of people on the ballot aren't going to get ANY votes, as they shouldn't.

And I think, along with what STLCards said, that there are many trends in HOF voting that make me shake my head. I still think trends like these just don't make any sense:

I've always wondered this-why exactly do so many players start off with about 20% of the vote and then climb up to eventual election? Who cares about the distinction between "first ballot HOFer", and non first ballot? The HOF standard should be a constant, if a guy is good enough one year he should be good enough the next, and if a guy is not good enough one year he should be not good enough the next. I understand some writers change their mind, and that is perfectly fine, but the huge jumps in the voting puzzle me.

This one is related to the last one, but it is perhaps the most troubling trend to me. I've never understood why it matters who else is one the HOF ballot. For instance, I heard sportswriters last year saying they would vote for Jim Rice, but this is the last year he'll have a shot because of obvious HOFers like Ripken and Gwynn coming up next year. This to me shows that the writers don't truly even understand the standard of the HOF. It should not be something that changes from year to year-but rather should be a constant that never wavers. The line that separates HOFer from non HOFer should not all of the sudden go up with Ripken and Gwynn, it should remain the same. Considering the limit for players you can vote for is 10, and when writers tell us who they vote for I hardly ever see anyone even getting close to that (over 5 would be a huge number from what I've seen), I don't understand why the other people on the ballot effect whether or not you should vote for someone. This to me is perhaps the most disturbing trend in HOF voting, it suggests to me that the people doing the voting just are confused about what actually makes a HOFer a HOFer.

[catbox_9]

I think you're mostly complaining about the voters and I agree they have flaws. I haven't looked at the votes to see where/if you voted but I think that Rogers should at least be on the ballot 5 years after he retired. To me if a guy is like Rogers and you could attempt to make a case for him, he should be on the ballot whether or not he'll likely get in. If Rogers wasn't ever on a ballot that would be as big of a travesty as putting him in the HOF would be.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This one is related to the last one, but it is perhaps the most troubling trend to me. I've never understood why it matters who else is one the HOF ballot. For instance, I heard sportswriters last year saying they would vote for Jim Rice, but this is the last year he'll have a shot because of obvious HOFers like Ripken and Gwynn coming up next year. This to me shows that the writers don't truly even understand the standard of the HOF. It should not be something that changes from year to year-but rather should be a constant that never wavers. The line that separates HOFer from non HOFer should not all of the sudden go up with Ripken and Gwynn, it should remain the same. Considering the limit for players you can vote for is 10, and when writers tell us who they vote for I hardly ever see anyone even getting close to that (over 5 would be a huge number from what I've seen), I don't understand why the other people on the ballot effect whether or not you should vote for someone. This to me is perhaps the most disturbing trend in HOF voting, it suggests to me that the people doing the voting just are confused about what actually makes a HOFer a HOFer.

It matters who else is on the ballot because many writers don't want to see more than 1 or 2 players inducted at a time. It shouldn't; a guy is either good enough or he's not. But that's the way it is.

[Erik Bedard]

Gary DiSarcina got a vote a couple years back. And there's no way he's anywhere near a HoFer. What I'm guessing a lot of writers do is vote for the guys they see as HoFers (the Gwynns and Ripkens, maybe the Gossages, Dawsons, Murphys, and Rices) and then vote for a few more that they know won't get in just because they liked them, or some other reason. Maybe some writer felt that Gary DiSarcina played the game the right way and was a good guy, so after voting for the candidates they feel are deserving, they gave DiSarcina a tip of the hat. I think a lot of people will do that for Kenny Rogers, and honestly, what harm can it do?

As for why pitchers' totals increase: As the standards for pitching in this era go down, the raw totals of pitchers in previous eras look more impressive.

[538280]

Gary DiSarcina got a vote a couple years back. And there's no way he's anywhere near a HoFer. What I'm guessing a lot of writers do is vote for the guys they see as HoFers (the Gwynns and Ripkens, maybe the Gossages, Dawsons, Murphys, and Rices) and then vote for a few more that they know won't get in just because they liked them, or some other reason. Maybe some writer felt that Gary DiSarcina played the game the right way and was a good guy, so after voting for the candidates they feel are deserving, they gave DiSarcina a tip of the hat. I think a lot of people will do that for Kenny Rogers, and honestly, what harm can it do?

Probably not any serious harm, but to me it just makes a mockery of the process. You're supposed to be voting for one thing-if a guy is a HOFer or not. There shouldn't be any "tips of the hat" or anything like that, The HOF ballot is not the place to do that. If you're a writer someday throw a little thing in your article about how hard you though Gary DiSarcina played or something like that. The place to send a shout out is not the HOF ballot IMO, I think that that makes a mockery of the process and shows writers aren't taking it all that seriously, if they feel it is okay to throw out a "tip of the hat" to a guy who clearly has no business getting any votes (which DiSarcina qualifies even more for than Kenny Rogers).

As for why pitchers' totals increase: As the standards for pitching in this era go down, the raw totals of pitchers in previous eras look more impressive.

It's not just pitchers, but as for your point here, that's still foolishness. Writers should (but apparently can't) realize that a 3.30 ERa today and a 3.30 ERA in the 80s are not the same thing. A 3.30 ERA today and you might be close to leading the league. A 3.30 ERA in the 80s and you were a solid pitcher but probably not a great one.

[538280]

I think you're mostly complaining about the voters and I agree they have flaws. I haven't looked at the votes to see where/if you voted but I think that Rogers should at least be on the ballot 5 years after he retired. To me if a guy is like Rogers and you could attempt to make a case for him, he should be on the ballot whether or not he'll likely get in. If Rogers wasn't ever on a ballot that would be as big of a travesty as putting him in the HOF would be.

I haven't voted because I don't know how the writers will treat Rogers. I don't think he deserves any votes, but the writers will probably throw him at least a few.

[philipthegreat]

I voted 0-5% because I don't see him as a hall of famer.