Justin Verlander Throws a No Hitter

DocZaius · Post #1 » by **DocZaius** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:19 am

http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270612106

Verlander No-hits Brewers

Justin Verlander had a nasty curveball and a 101 mph fastball, and that stuff was good enough to get the Tigers' first no-hitter since 1984.

Post #2 » by **sunshinekids99** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:28 am

I really like this guy. Congrats to him. I think he's going to be a very good pitcher for many years to come.

Rip'nTheCourt · Post #3 » by **Rip'nTheCourt** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:51 am

Hitting 102 mph in the 9th inning is just plain sick.

Congrats to Verlander. (on the no-hitter and on the smoking hot wife) :clap:

Post #4 » by **FNQ** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:52 am

Yeah for real, what a wife!

This is almost garnering as much ESPN attention as Schilling's one hitter, so you know it must have been impressive

http://www.last.fm/user/DPF55 · Post #5 » by **Buck You** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:52 am

Post #6 » by **PhilipNelsonFan** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:03 am

Verlander is a G.

Jose7 · Post #7 » by **Jose7** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:16 am

Amazing performance, congrats to him and the tigers :clap:

. They have been on a roll.

suns32 · Post #8 » by **suns32** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:48 am

This guy is going to have a great career.

cmaff051 · Post #9 » by **cmaff051** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:42 am

Pics of hot wife needed.

Barkley+GS=Love · Post #10 » by **Barkley+GS=Love** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:27 am

Beauty of a game. However, that 102 mark is exxagerated. All TV channels speed up the gun about 2-3 MPH at least, that was probably 97-100(MAX), which is still amazingly impressive. Great game, and that curveball was plain up nasty.

Post #11 » by **lpsevier** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:23 pm

Seems like a nice kid, good for him.

Rip'nTheCourt · Post #12 » by **Rip'nTheCourt** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:49 pm

Warriorsrule1 wrote:Beauty of a game. However, that 102 mark is exxagerated. All TV channels speed up the gun about 2-3 MPH at least, that was probably 97-100(MAX), which is still amazingly impressive. Great game, and that curveball was plain up nasty.

It was 102 on the broadcast. That pitch registered 101 on the in-stadium gun.

And I don't buy this whole gun conspiracy anyways. Reason being, you don't "speed up a radar gun" by just turning a knob. What you can do however is to aim the gun at different points during the flight of the ball after it leaves the hand of a pitcher...and that will give you different readings. The closer the radar is aimed at the pitcher the faster the registered reading will be as a fastball roughly loses 8 mph from the time it leaves the pitcher's hand to the time it crosses home plate.

That all said, aiming the gun closer to the pitcher isn't creating a false reading. That reading is 100% accurate. It's simply registering the pitch speed at its' fastest point.

trwi7 · Post #13 » by **trwi7** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:27 am

Well I don't know about anybody else but I'll sure as hell take being no hit one out of every three games if it means I win the other two.

Post #14 » by **arrpy** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:42 pm

Wish he could of did it back-to-back and made history, how crazy would that of been....