Roger
Last seen for girls in 1993 at #11,780 · #832 for boys in 2025, 297 births
Given to boys 99.6% of the time
- Peak · boys
- 1945 · 10,571 births
- Debut · boys
- 25 births
- In top 100 · boys
- 55 yrsof 146 years
- Total births · boys
- 442,142since 1880
Roger over time
Rank among boys' names. Click any year to open it.
Gaps mean fewer than 5 babies received the name that year, so the SSA doesn't publish it.
Show data table
| Year | girls | boys | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| rank | births | rank | births | |
| 2025 | — | #832 | 297 | |
| 2024 | — | #749 | 341 | |
| 2023 | — | #757 | 344 | |
| 2022 | — | #749 | 342 | |
| 2021 | — | #685 | 388 | |
| 2020 | — | #685 | 375 | |
| 2019 | — | #694 | 362 | |
| 2018 | — | #637 | 413 | |
| 2017 | — | #627 | 417 | |
| 2016 | — | #644 | 409 | |
| 2015 | — | #579 | 481 | |
| 2014 | — | #582 | 477 | |
| 2013 | — | #555 | 476 | |
| 2012 | — | #564 | 459 | |
| 2011 | — | #534 | 477 | |
| 2010 | — | #510 | 504 | |
| 2009 | — | #497 | 550 | |
| 2008 | — | #462 | 598 | |
| 2007 | — | #468 | 582 | |
| 2006 | — | #455 | 594 | |
| 2005 | — | #417 | 644 | |
| 2004 | — | #413 | 630 | |
| 2003 | — | #394 | 664 | |
| 2002 | — | #384 | 676 | |
| 2001 | — | #369 | 719 | |
| 2000 | — | #372 | 703 | |
| 1999 | — | #358 | 730 | |
| 1998 | — | #347 | 769 | |
| 1997 | — | #325 | 804 | |
| 1996 | — | #285 | 957 | |
| 1995 | — | #278 | 1,001 | |
| 1994 | — | #264 | 1,071 | |
| 1993 | #11,780 | 6 | #253 | 1,132 |
| 1992 | — | #214 | 1,440 | |
| 1991 | — | #231 | 1,294 | |
| 1990 | #10,193 | 7 | #211 | 1,456 |
| 1989 | #8,037 | 9 | #196 | 1,477 |
| 1988 | #5,065 | 16 | #180 | 1,578 |
| 1987 | #6,335 | 11 | #176 | 1,559 |
| 1986 | #4,347 | 18 | #167 | 1,608 |
| 1985 | #5,077 | 14 | #159 | 1,706 |
| 1984 | #7,398 | 8 | #157 | 1,718 |
| 1983 | #5,457 | 12 | #144 | 1,870 |
| 1982 | #5,911 | 11 | #127 | 2,167 |
| 1981 | #4,746 | 15 | #120 | 2,244 |
| 1980 | #4,517 | 16 | #134 | 2,072 |
| 1979 | #4,052 | 18 | #132 | 2,024 |
| 1978 | #4,459 | 15 | #120 | 2,143 |
| 1977 | #8,444 | 6 | #114 | 2,313 |
| 1976 | #3,407 | 20 | #103 | 2,465 |
| 1975 | #5,161 | 11 | #97 | 2,617 |
| 1974 | #4,041 | 15 | #93 | 2,754 |
| 1973 | #3,233 | 20 | #84 | 3,155 |
| 1972 | #2,523 | 28 | #76 | 3,531 |
| 1971 | #2,375 | 32 | #71 | 4,129 |
| 1970 | #2,043 | 40 | #61 | 4,583 |
| 1969 | #2,454 | 28 | #59 | 4,905 |
| 1968 | #2,126 | 32 | #55 | 5,183 |
| 1967 | #1,783 | 42 | #53 | 5,723 |
| 1966 | #2,519 | 23 | #51 | 6,296 |
| 1965 | #2,154 | 30 | #49 | 6,429 |
| 1964 | #2,752 | 21 | #49 | 7,389 |
| 1963 | #2,211 | 29 | #53 | 7,743 |
| 1962 | #2,073 | 32 | #47 | 9,079 |
| 1961 | #1,838 | 39 | #47 | 9,652 |
| 1960 | #1,925 | 35 | #47 | 9,041 |
| 1959 | #2,108 | 29 | #47 | 8,794 |
| 1958 | #2,376 | 23 | #47 | 8,368 |
| 1957 | #2,067 | 28 | #42 | 9,866 |
| 1956 | #2,151 | 26 | #41 | 10,153 |
| 1955 | #2,222 | 24 | #37 | 10,979 |
| 1954 | #1,801 | 33 | #34 | 11,717 |
| 1953 | #1,931 | 28 | #31 | 13,172 |
| 1952 | #1,540 | 39 | #30 | 12,132 |
| 1951 | #1,968 | 25 | #29 | 12,425 |
| 1950 | #1,835 | 27 | #27 | 12,552 |
| 1949 | #1,603 | 34 | #25 | 12,821 |
| 1948 | #1,953 | 24 | #24 | 12,818 |
| 1947 | #1,525 | 38 | #25 | 12,760 |
| 1946 | #1,583 | 31 | #23 | 12,411 |
| 1945 | #1,312 | 37 | #22 | 10,571 |
| 1944 | #1,578 | 27 | #23 | 10,581 |
| 1943 | #1,228 | 43 | #24 | 10,773 |
| 1942 | #1,438 | 32 | #25 | 9,174 |
| 1941 | #1,696 | 22 | #25 | 8,095 |
| 1940 | #1,477 | 27 | #26 | 7,598 |
| 1939 | #1,401 | 28 | #28 | 7,155 |
| 1938 | #1,945 | 17 | #31 | 6,551 |
| 1937 | #1,679 | 21 | #36 | 5,713 |
| 1936 | #1,549 | 23 | #35 | 5,702 |
| 1935 | #2,095 | 15 | #36 | 5,152 |
| 1934 | #1,771 | 19 | #39 | 4,766 |
| 1933 | #1,970 | 16 | #48 | 3,917 |
| 1932 | #1,597 | 23 | #50 | 3,788 |
| 1931 | #1,459 | 26 | #53 | 3,625 |
| 1930 | #1,607 | 24 | #58 | 3,246 |
| 1929 | #1,257 | 35 | #64 | 2,928 |
| 1928 | #1,637 | 25 | #71 | 2,774 |
| 1927 | #1,619 | 26 | #84 | 2,408 |
| 1926 | #1,932 | 20 | #89 | 2,260 |
| 1925 | #2,617 | 13 | #90 | 2,099 |
| 1924 | #2,514 | 14 | #93 | 2,054 |
| 1923 | #2,587 | 13 | #95 | 1,888 |
| 1922 | #2,479 | 14 | #96 | 1,848 |
| 1921 | #4,023 | 7 | #99 | 1,803 |
| 1920 | #3,598 | 8 | #103 | 1,691 |
| 1919 | #2,813 | 11 | #124 | 1,298 |
| 1918 | #3,869 | 7 | #116 | 1,426 |
| 1917 | #2,879 | 10 | #119 | 1,249 |
| 1916 | #3,552 | 7 | #129 | 1,087 |
| 1915 | #4,274 | 5 | #124 | 1,086 |
| 1914 | — | #126 | 816 | |
| 1913 | — | #138 | 565 | |
| 1912 | #2,979 | 5 | #138 | 464 |
| 1911 | — | #139 | 241 | |
| 1910 | — | #170 | 176 | |
| 1909 | — | #180 | 128 | |
| 1908 | — | #185 | 115 | |
| 1907 | — | #169 | 127 | |
| 1906 | — | #192 | 94 | |
| 1905 | — | #224 | 73 | |
| 1904 | — | #194 | 91 | |
| 1903 | — | #187 | 86 | |
| 1902 | — | #209 | 73 | |
| 1901 | — | #223 | 60 | |
| 1900 | — | #219 | 81 | |
| 1899 | — | #199 | 67 | |
| 1898 | — | #201 | 74 | |
| 1897 | — | #222 | 58 | |
| 1896 | — | #215 | 70 | |
| 1895 | — | #207 | 69 | |
| 1894 | — | #224 | 58 | |
| 1893 | — | #253 | 49 | |
| 1892 | — | #239 | 55 | |
| 1891 | — | #214 | 55 | |
| 1890 | — | #229 | 52 | |
| 1889 | — | #231 | 49 | |
| 1888 | — | #256 | 47 | |
| 1887 | — | #254 | 39 | |
| 1886 | — | #301 | 32 | |
| 1885 | — | #327 | 27 | |
| 1884 | — | #271 | 39 | |
| 1883 | — | #346 | 23 | |
| 1882 | — | #307 | 32 | |
| 1881 | — | #296 | 29 | |
| 1880 | — | #341 | 25 | |
In the first year the SSA published name data, Roger was already there! It came in at #341, and was given to 25 baby boys.
Quietest stretch: 1880–1883, when fewer than 33 boys a year got the name.
Where Roger is popular in 1950
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- West Virginia#11 · 1 in 42
- New Hampshire#17 · 1 in 64
- Nebraska#17 · 1 in 67
- Kentucky#17 · 1 in 71
- North Dakota#18 · 1 in 69
Best ever in a state: #7 in New Hampshire, 1923.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| West Virginia | #11 | 579 | 1 in 42 |
| Kentucky | #17 | 505 | 1 in 71 |
| Nebraska | #17 | 220 | 1 in 67 |
| New Hampshire | #17 | 82 | 1 in 64 |
| North Dakota | #18 | 108 | 1 in 69 |
| North Carolina | #19 | 509 | 1 in 99 |
| South Dakota | #19 | 124 | 1 in 65 |
| Tennessee | #19 | 439 | 1 in 89 |
| Virginia | #19 | 411 | 1 in 90 |
| Maine | #20 | 128 | 1 in 73 |
| Iowa | #21 | 393 | 1 in 77 |
| Wisconsin | #22 | 405 | 1 in 97 |
| Idaho | #23 | 71 | 1 in 97 |
| Kansas | #23 | 192 | 1 in 104 |
| Minnesota | #23 | 423 | 1 in 84 |
| Oklahoma | #23 | 234 | 1 in 102 |
| Missouri | #24 | 380 | 1 in 110 |
| Arkansas | #26 | 189 | 1 in 118 |
| Indiana | #26 | 411 | 1 in 109 |
| Ohio | #27 | 824 | 1 in 110 |
| South Carolina | #28 | 205 | 1 in 139 |
| Illinois | #29 | 669 | 1 in 139 |
| Michigan | #29 | 638 | 1 in 122 |
| Rhode Island | #29 | 66 | 1 in 121 |
| Alabama | #30 | 264 | 1 in 144 |
| Vermont | #30 | 39 | 1 in 98 |
| Washington | #30 | 202 | 1 in 134 |
| Oregon | #33 | 117 | 1 in 144 |
| Colorado | #34 | 108 | 1 in 152 |
| Utah | #34 | 67 | 1 in 143 |
| Connecticut | #37 | 124 | 1 in 150 |
| Florida | #37 | 145 | 1 in 210 |
| Montana | #37 | 43 | 1 in 159 |
| Delaware | #39 | 20 | 1 in 168 |
| Maryland | #40 | 117 | 1 in 209 |
| Massachusetts | #40 | 255 | 1 in 186 |
| District of Columbia | #41 | 64 | 1 in 205 |
| Georgia | #41 | 223 | 1 in 195 |
| Nevada | #41 | 8 | 1 in 176 |
| Wyoming | #41 | 18 | 1 in 166 |
| California | #43 | 561 | 1 in 218 |
| Arizona | #44 | 51 | 1 in 196 |
| Mississippi | #44 | 133 | 1 in 219 |
| Texas | #45 | 442 | 1 in 235 |
| Alaska | #49 | 7 | 1 in 197 |
| New York | #54 | 593 | 1 in 254 |
| Louisiana | #58 | 139 | 1 in 255 |
| Pennsylvania | #58 | 391 | 1 in 277 |
| New Mexico | #63 | 42 | 1 in 236 |
| New Jersey | #64 | 151 | 1 in 305 |
| Hawaii | #79 | 23 | 1 in 256 |
Ranks are within each state; “1 in N” is out of the boys born there that year. The SSA only publishes a name in a state when 5 or more babies of one sex got it.
See more about Roger
- 83 spots since 2024 (#749 → #832)
- 147 spots since 2020 (#685 → #832)
- 253 spots since 2015 (#579 → #832)
- Biggest jump: 75 spots in 1884 (#346 → #271)
- Biggest drop: 83 spots in 2025 (#749 → #832)
- Debuted 1880
- Peaked 1945 at #22 (10,571 births)
- Births halved by 1968, 23 yrs later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: 55 yrs · run 1921–1975
- Top 1,000: 146 yrs · run 1880–2025
- Highest: 1 in 127 boys born in 1945 were named Roger (0.79%)
- Latest: 1 in 5,751 boys born in 2025 (0.02%)
- 24.9% of all boys named Roger (110,158) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 342 | #231 (1889) | #293 |
| 1890s | 607 | #199 (1899) | #220 |
| 1900s | 928 | #169 (1907) | #198 |
| 1910s | 8,408 | #116 (1918) | #132 |
| 1920s | 21,753 | #64 (1929) | #88 |
| 1930s | 49,615 | #28 (1939) | #41 |
| 1940s | 107,602 | #22 (1945) | #24 |
| 1950s | 110,158 | #27 (1950) | #37 |
| 1960s | 71,440 | #47 (1961) | #51 |
| 1970s | 29,714 | #61 (1970) | #95 |
| 1980s | 17,999 | #120 (1981) | #156 |
| 1990s | 10,654 | #211 (1990) | #277 |
| 2000s | 6,360 | #369 (2001) | #423 |
| 2010s | 4,475 | #510 (2010) | #593 |
| 2020s | 2,087 | #685 (2021) | #743 |
All figures count published births only (names given to at least 5 boys in a year). Registrations before 1937 are incomplete, so early shares and totals run low.
Roger in 1950
Top girls' names in 1950
Top boys' names in 1950
More about 1950
girls
1,713,054 girls got a published name in 1950; 1 in 63,446 of them was named Roger, which outranked 70.0% of the 6,109 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 24.1% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
- #1,794Thresa28
- #1,794Vanita28
- #1,794Yolonda28
- #1,835Roger27
- #1,835Arletha27
- #1,835Athena27
- #1,835Brigid27
- #1,871Annita26
- #1,871Cindi26
- #1,871Clemmie26
Tied with 35 names at #1,835; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
1,790,262 boys got a published name in 1950; 1 in 143 of them was named Roger, which outranked 99.4% of the 4,196 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 33.8% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.