Talk:Justin Verlander

Tone of the page
Anybody else get the impression that at least half of this was written by his mother?76.102.50.71 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... no not really! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.65.187 (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Current sport tag
I really didn't think I had to explain this. When a person is involved with a "current event", they get a current event tag. When it's a current event in the sporting world, such as a no-hitter, they get a "current sport" tag. After a week or so (not really sure about that part) it is no longer a current event and the tag goes away. When Buerhle hit a no-hitter earlier in the year, his page got a tag (although it also should have been a "current sport" tag instead of "current event"). When somebody dies they get a tag even though they are not going to die again. When somebody makes racial comments in a nightclub they get a tag. I could name countless other examples but I'm tired and still can't believe this would be controversial. Thanks RobDe68 03:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you that you wasted your time writing that.Chris Nelson 03:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was at the game and the radar said his pitch was 101 miles per hour, most other news sources agree, including the one cited in this article. Only the telecast clocked it at 102.

On top of that, the commentator also referenced 101 on that pitch, while the graphic showed 102.

Picture
While the current picture is a great moment, you can barely see Verlander in there.. I think a change should be made

Obviously, that's the best available.Chris Nelson 17:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Added a new picture. Still not a good close-up but a decent action shot nonetheless. TheKuLeR 15:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Amateur section has been overedited and needs a rewrite
When did he go to the Richmond Baseball Academy? Looks like before high school? "After he recovered"... from what? Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal life
per WP:BLP we must be conservative in the personal information we place in articles. per WP:UNDUE we do not have an entire section about a "relationship" that was only rumored and has been denied. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Image
For a while, we have had File:Justin Verlander on May 20, 2008.jpg as the lead image in the article. User:Connormah recently updated it to this one: File:Justin Verlander 2013.jpg. As I said on Connor's talk, it's not a hill on which I am willing to die, put personal preference-wise, I think the first image is of better encyclopedic value ... it shows him pitching, it shows he's a righty, you can see a little bit of his delivery, it's of decent quality, and I am aware of no licensing issues. The updated image that Connormah posted is of little encyclopedic value, in my opinion ... all you see is a close up of his face with an awkward pose ... he is not even wearing a jersey, presumably a team sweatshirt. I would welcome some discussion on this. Thanks.  Go  Phightins  !  03:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The image came from one of these Flickr sets: . The main reason I switched it was because there is a higher quality image available that is current and gives a better depiction of the appearance of the subject - something that is hard to come across these days. If there are any alternative shots in the sets then that'd be great (I can't really tell any that aren't labelled) but I think a more current, higher quality image is desirable here. – Connormah (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I vote for the headshot. I couldn't find any Wikipedia guidelines about what type of image is best for an Infobox, but in my opinion, the image that shows the person the best is better than an image showing what the person is notable for. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a slight preference for the headshot. If we had a great action shot then we should use that, but I don't think that the original is&mdash; it is too loosely cropped and it is very grainy. And the headshot isn't any more goofy than Tim Lincecum's infobox photo :-) Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are a number of Verlander photos (Commons category) that aren't being used. Some might be a good compromise. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What about File:Verlander warms up.jpg?  Go  Phightins  !  00:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything here? – Connormah (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Justin Verlander. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140514052003/http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140514/SPORTS0104/305140021 to http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140514/SPORTS0104/305140021

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Justin Verlander. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160105202916/http://eye-on-baseball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/33440802 to http://eye-on-baseball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/33440802

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Houston Astros (2017–2020, 2022–present)
Houston Astros (2017–2020, 2022–present)

This should be

Houston Astros (2017–present) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.117.81.91 (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree 100%. The heading says "teams" and he was on the team that year, even if he was out for injury. Its inconsistent and awkward for the rest of the page too because when you scroll down, it says "Houston Astros 2017-present". To take out the year he was on the team because of injury in a sidebar showing what teams he was on makes no logical sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:4454:7000:700F:BB3E:7510:567B (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Standard practice is to only include seasons in which the player actually appeared in a game. You are welcome to challenge that consensus at WT:MLB, but let's not pretend that the present approach is devoid of logical sense. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 16:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How does it "make no sense"? It shows that he missed a year because of injury.. He was not on the active roster that season. This is all explained in the prose. Spanneraol (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense at all to show his "teams" on the top of the page and then below in the body of the article showing him on the team. If the distinction is to be made for a year he didn't actually play (but was still a member of the team, under contract, and paid), then it should be consistent throughout. That's why I said it makes no sense. Its not consistent. I guess you call it standard practice for wikipedia, but its not standard practice for discussion of an MLB player and the teams they were members of during specific years. Its inconsistent with the rest of the article, inaccurate, and not correct. He was on the team that year even if he didn't play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:4454:7000:700F:BB3E:7510:567B (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it is necessary to have consistency between the infobox and the headings within the article. It does not make an iota of difference that he was under contract and paid; he did not play in a single game during the 2021 season, and the infobox reflects this fact. At any rate, I would favor removing the parenthetical years from the team headings anyway since it is clear from the subheadings which years he was a member of the separate organizations. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 21:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

World Series reputation
Considering his ERA is above 6 (itself a record for a pitcher who has made this many appearances in the World Series) and he has been winless in all of his outings, would saying he's the worst pitcher in the Fall Classic violate the neutral point of view of the website, or is there enough evidence to make an argument. 2600:1700:370:41C0:B863:664:5ECD:AA34 (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It is not neutral to say he's the "worst pitcher" in World Series history. It's not true, he's an incredible pitcher with a poor record, and I can think of many "worse pitchers" who appeared in the WS in recent years off the top of my head. What would be neutral would be to note that he has a 6.07 ERA, the highest in World Series history among pitchers with 30 WS innings pitched. Considering he is likely to get another start in the WS, it may not be prudent to add that yet, considering the stat will change. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)