Talk:Kenny Rogers (baseball)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

take the part about his interviews out if you want, it's true, but i don't have documentation so you'd be justified in doing so. his friendship with verlander, though, is well documented and not really debatable. is it so shocking to you that teammates might be friends? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.85.147.105 (talk • contribs) .

The last revert is due to the info not being particularly encyclopedic. Are we going to list every pair of players that were ever friends in baseball? And are we documenting every player that has ever referred to every other player by their nickname? Wikipedia is not a fan site for Justin Verlander and Kenny Rogers. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to take out every bit of info that's not strictly encyclopedic on wikipedia, you have a whole lot of work ahead of you. As you have apparent omnipotent judgement regarding what is and isn't relevant for any given subject, though, I'm sure you can handle it. -- happydrifter

The length of the incident in 2005 is way too long in comparison with the rest of the article. Information should either be added, or that section should be shortened.

Good luck with that. You'll get no battle from me.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] GA --> FL --> TX

he was only BORN in georgia. he was raised in florida (according to an article) and basically grew up in the Texas Rangers farm system from age 17 onwards. ....and actually STILL LIVES in texas with his family.

He was born in Savannah, GA, his father was in the military.He was raised in Dover, Florida and went to Plant City HS. His relatives continue to live in Dover, though he now lives in Texas with his wife.

[edit] Rogers and NY

What about his so called New York Curse? Every time hes pitched on or pitched against any new york team hes had terrible numbers. (bases loaded walk in 99 while on the mets ended the season). also his post season record in general is pretty horrific.

I guess you can forget about that now. Rabbethan 06:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "in the news"

this section still needs to be summarised since all the very detailed dates, etc. aren't pertinent after the issue has been settled to the satisfaction of the complainants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.117.7 (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "Brown Spot"

in regards to all the of pine tar allegations and subsequent reversions, this article ([1] ) shows MLB's official statement on the matter; ruled as dirt stuck to the rosin/moisture on his hand

I wouldn't be suprised if we got a couple of angry Cards fans who vandalize the article again. I'll try and keep an eye on it.
Epsoul 03:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The above statement about "MLBs offical statement" is disingenious, at best. If you read the article, the claim is not mentioned in it. In fact, at the bottom of the page, there is a disclaimer saying the article was not subject to MLB approval. There was no investigation, thus, no ruling or settlement. 209.144.45.106 22:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


There definitely needs to be some mention of the pine tar allegations. Sportscenter talked about this in detail, also with one analyst suggesting that upwards of 60% of pitchers use pine tar, but usually not so much that its so easily visible.
They also showed clips of Roger's two previous playoff games with the same discoloration on his hand in each game. Its also already mentioned in the pine tar article.
BTW, this is a Tiger's fan speaking, I'm not suggesting this be mentioned due to bias, but rather because its clearly worthy of being mentioned. 69.47.227.234 04:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Um, what is the significance of pine tar? I hate sports and have no idea what this means. Furthermore, the article itself doesn't even make it clear that the substance is alleged to be pine tar. Wikpedia articles are not suppose to assume familiarity with a subject, so for me and others like me you need to include the allegations and their significance. 24.128.111.221 05:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


4,000 articles on this controversy linkked on google news, but no mention in this article. Dozens of news media agencies are leveling charges of cheating. I'm not much of a baseball fan, but Wikipedia fails again.Djgranados 20:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Major League Baseball has issued no official press releases or statements ruling the smudge was dirt. There was no investigation, thus, no ruling. Due to the major media coverage, the "Brown Spot Controversy" section should stay.

Ref. #7 actually doesn't support the claim that a similar substance was observed against the yankees. --132.162.215.238 00:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PoV Statements

I don't agree with this edit. While the part about him pitching better is pov, I don't believe the rest of it is. Epsoul 04:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

it wasn't POV -- it's a quote from the sports analyst, comparing his pitching in the first inning to the second, without the smudge!
Its still PoV IMO. If you had said something like "Some analysts view Rogers' play in the second inning better than his in the first" that might be NPoV, but you're indicating a uniform agreement in the sports community.
Epsoul 04:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


This is all moot now. With all of the info on the ruling of it being simply dirt coming to light, I think it's pointless to mention, since ballplayers getting dirt on their hands is fairly common in baseball. Such trivial things aren't worthy of mention in articles because of influence from massive media exposure.


Well, I think we should take a wait and see approach. If the media does indeed blow this up (the media outside of St. Louis), then it should be kept, otherwise it should be deleted. Currently, there is an article soley about the substance on SI's front page, therefore, it seems to be of moderate importance imo. My original reasoning merely saying that the excuse for deletion was invalid.
Epsoul 04:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The national media is all over this. Their are several thousand articles on the subject and how it most certainly was not dirt, contrary to what MLB statesDjgranados
Well, the German media once hailed Hitler as a savior. Mass media isn't always right. Remember, controversy sells papers/subscriptions/whatever, and almost everyone jumps on it.
Epsoul 00:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
WHAT? The mass media isn't always right? Nooo....... Stusutcliffe 04:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)StuSutcliffe

[edit] wiki is supposed to be an encyclopaedia

all allegations and speculations should not be here. unless MLB actually releases an official statement, please keep all the above to your own personal blogs.

Semi-relatedly, either source the constantly added bit about Smudge-gate contributing to Leyland not playing Rogers in the last World Series game (which wouldn't have been his regular start, anyway - the normal rotation for the series was Verlander than Rogers) or don't add it at all. To my knowledge, Leyland did nothing but deny that the pine-tar allegations had anything to do with not giving Rogers that start. happydrifter (UTC)

[edit] External Links

This page has way too many external links. He has at least a dozen links, and I highly dout that they are all important enough to be included.