(05-22-2014 04:50 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Your theory and yours alone. I've never, ever heard anyone else propose it, as it makes absolutely no sense.

Geez, Walt ... could you ease up on the bedside manor a bit.

While we all respect what you contribute here, it's possible to disagree without being so directly confrontational.

I realize that I can fall guilty of it at times myself, but come on ...

It's a 1-2-3 inning for Flox.

I don't like that inter-inning advertisement for Heart Scan that boasts it "can help you prevent the heart attacks and strokes that no one can predict."

Huh?

Here's what the Mayo Clinic says:

Quote:Heart scans, also known as coronary calcium scans, provide pictures of your heart's arteries (coronary arteries). Doctors use heart scans to look for calcium deposits in the coronary arteries that can narrow your arteries and increase your heart attack risk. The result of this test is often called a coronary calcium score.

Heart scans can show that you may have a higher risk of having a heart attack or other problems before you have any obvious symptoms of heart disease. Heart scans aren't for everyone, though. While some walk-in medical facilities advertise that you can walk in for a quick check of your coronary arteries, be cautious of these offers.

The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology don't recommend routine use of heart scans on people who don't have symptoms of heart disease and who don't smoke or have cardiac risk factors, such as elevated cholesterol or high blood pressure.

. . .

A heart scan isn't useful if you have:

Low heart attack risk. If, for example, you are younger than 55 years old, have normal cholesterol and blood pressure levels, and don't smoke, your heart attack risk percentage may be calculated at less than 10 percent, putting you in the low-risk category. It means that because you have few risk factors, you have less than a 10 percent chance of having a heart attack in the next 10 years. So if you're at low risk, a heart scan probably won't tell you anything you and your doctor don't already know.

High heart attack risk. Having a 20 percent or greater risk of having a heart attack in the next 10 years means you're at high risk. If you have high cholesterol levels and high blood pressure, smoke, and are older than 65, you'd likely be in this category. If you're at high risk, a heart scan won't do you much good. That's because you and your doctor already know that you're at risk based on your risk factors and that you should take steps to prevent a heart attack, such as taking medications or making significant lifestyle changes.

You also shouldn't have a heart scan if you've already had a heart attack or have had a surgical procedure, such as angioplasty or coronary bypass surgery, to treat coronary artery disease. In these cases, your doctor will already know you have coronary artery disease and you're at a high risk of having a heart attack. A heart scan won't provide any more information on how your condition should be treated.

When a heart scan might be useful: A heart scan may give you information about your heart attack risk if you fall into the intermediate heart attack risk category. This means, based on your risk factors, your risk of having a heart attack in the next 10 years falls somewhere between 10 and 20 percent. For example, you may be considered to have an intermediate heart attack risk if you're between the ages of 55 and 65 years and you have borderline high cholesterol or blood pressure or are a smoker. Your doctor can help you determine what your risk level is. A heart scan may be useful if you're at intermediate risk or if you have chest pain, especially if it's unclear whether a heart problem is the culprit.

Also, there is some evidence that people whose calcium scores show a risk of heart disease are more motivated to make lifestyle changes, such as losing weight and quitting smoking, than those who don't get scanned.

Risks

Heart scans use a type of X-ray technology called multislice computerized tomography or helical CT to see the calcium in your arteries. This type of scan does have some risks, including exposing you to radiation. However, the potential harm of repeated heart scans over time isn't known.

Another type of heart scan uses computerized tomography (CT) angiography to show narrowing of your heart arteries. If you have this procedure, you could have an allergic reaction to the medication that's used during the procedure.

A caution on walk-in heart scan clinics

Certain medical facilities and walk-in centers may advertise heart scans as a quick, easy way to measure your risk of a heart attack. These advertisements often target people who worry that they might have a particular disease even if they seem healthy and have no known risk factors. Facilities that promote heart scans for the general public don't require a referral from a doctor. You can walk in and get the scan. However, your insurance might not cover these scans. The results of a heart scan should never be interpreted alone, but should be used with information about your overall heart health and any risk factors you have, such as family history and high cholesterol.

If you decide to have a heart scan, it may be best to have it done through your primary doctor, since he or she already knows your other risk factors for a heart attack. If you choose a walk-in scan, be sure to take a copy of the results to your own doctor for follow-up. He or she can help you decide what steps to take to improve your heart health and prevent a heart attack.

(05-22-2014 04:50 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:48 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:42 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:41 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:36 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Not a particularly strong first inning by Blake, but he escapes with a one-out walk and a line shot double play by Hoelscher. Grooved a 1-2 pitch to Miller. My pet peeve of all pet peeves-- throwing pitches in the zone on a pitchers' count.

Cook ground out to 2B.
Hoelscher flied out.
Reeves first pitch infield pop.

Scoreless heading to the top of the second inning.

Of course in the spirit of equal time, there is a philosophy that throwing pitches in the zone on a pitcher's count is exactly what you want to do. This attacks the hitter and assumes that the ball will be put in play sooner than if you were pitching to avoid the bat. Less pitches per at bat allows the pitcher to go deeper in the game. Just saying...

13th, I have NEVER in my life heard that philosophy. Yes, you attack the hitter, but you try to get them to chase a hard breaking ball or a high fastball. You should NEVER throw a 0-2 or 1-2 pitch in the zone.

Well Walt, I have had in depth talks with a D1 pitching coach that teaches this. It is very logical if you do not have quality depth in your staff and you are trying to hide the lack of depth.

I admit I grew up with the same understanding and tales of extra running assigned pitchers if batters got good swings when the pitcher was ahead in the count. I have heard Graham remind pitchers that they have multiple shots at making the perfect pitch when ahead 0-2.

BTW, this is not the first time I have mentioned this theory...

Your theory and yours alone. I've never, ever heard anyone else propose it, as it makes absolutely no sense.

Don't have such a closed mind. I had quite a long discussion about this with a former major league pitcher who is now a D1 pitching coach. I am just passing on the theory. It makes perfect sense to me. BTW, I might call you misguided at times, but I don't think I would ever call you a liar on a public message board.

Another 1-2-3 inning by Blake (2 groundouts, fly out). Time for offense to make an appearance.

Byrd flied out to LF.
Stainback ground out to 2B on 3-2 pitch.
Teykl flied out.
One time through lineup, no a single hard hit ball.

Scoreless heading to the top of the fourth inning.

1st/2nd/3rd inning pitches:

Fox: 16/14/8. Total: 38
Mittura: 10/14/14. Total: 38

(05-22-2014 04:47 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Granting it's been a while since I've been a regular at the park, but I can't recall hearing Graham instruct his pitchers "throw balls". .

Oros

Hitless in Hattiesburg.

(05-22-2014 05:04 PM)elf owl Wrote:  Hitless in Hattiesburg.

I'll take "Worst Romantic Comedy of All-Time" for $200, Alex.

(05-22-2014 04:45 PM)elf owl Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:42 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:41 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:36 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Not a particularly strong first inning by Blake, but he escapes with a one-out walk and a line shot double play by Hoelscher. Grooved a 1-2 pitch to Miller. My pet peeve of all pet peeves-- throwing pitches in the zone on a pitchers' count.

Cook ground out to 2B.
Hoelscher flied out.
Reeves first pitch infield pop.

Scoreless heading to the top of the second inning.

Of course in the spirit of equal time, there is a philosophy that throwing pitches in the zone on a pitcher's count is exactly what you want to do. This attacks the hitter and assumes that the ball will be put in play sooner than if you were pitching to avoid the bat. Less pitches per at bat allows the pitcher to go deeper in the game. Just saying...

13th, I have NEVER in my life heard that philosophy. Yes, you attack the hitter, but you try to get them to chase a hard breaking ball or a high fastball. You should NEVER throw a 0-2 or 1-2 pitch in the zone.

Never say never. Surprise works.

Work that Rice Unconventional Wisdom...

Glad some of the guys have learned to bunt. This might be a low scoring game where on run came make a difference.

BOOOM!!!! Aquino! 2-0 Rice!

DINGER!

Ka-BOOM!! Aquino wants to get back to Omaha.

"A monstrous shot."

2-0, Rice!

Aquino appears to be getting ready for another HR Derby at the CWS.

Another quick 1-2-3 inning by Blake (ground out, 2 fly outs).

Cook infield single on hard shot off pitcher.
Hoelscher successfully bunts Keenan to 2B, one out.
Reeves first pitch ground out to 3B. Awful AB. Come on, JC, make him work a bit.
Aquino first pitch 2-run bomb#6! A no-doubter, monster shot.
Ewing ground out to SS.

Good guys take a 2-0 lead heading to the top of the fifth inning.

Correction: Homerin' in Hattiesburg.

(05-22-2014 05:06 PM)TJS_NYC Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:45 PM)elf owl Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:42 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:41 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  Of course in the spirit of equal time, there is a philosophy that throwing pitches in the zone on a pitcher's count is exactly what you want to do. This attacks the hitter and assumes that the ball will be put in play sooner than if you were pitching to avoid the bat. Less pitches per at bat allows the pitcher to go deeper in the game. Just saying...

13th, I have NEVER in my life heard that philosophy. Yes, you attack the hitter, but you try to get them to chase a hard breaking ball or a high fastball. You should NEVER throw a 0-2 or 1-2 pitch in the zone.

Never say never. Surprise works.

Work that Rice Unconventional Wisdom...

Walt, if a pitcher NEVER throws an 0-2/1-2 pitch in the zone, a batter should NEVER take the bat off his shoulder on those pitches. How many times have we seen stellar Rice pitchers strike out batters looking on 3 pitches??

(05-22-2014 05:10 PM)NoodleOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 05:06 PM)TJS_NYC Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:45 PM)elf owl Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:42 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 04:41 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  Of course in the spirit of equal time, there is a philosophy that throwing pitches in the zone on a pitcher's count is exactly what you want to do. This attacks the hitter and assumes that the ball will be put in play sooner than if you were pitching to avoid the bat. Less pitches per at bat allows the pitcher to go deeper in the game. Just saying...

13th, I have NEVER in my life heard that philosophy. Yes, you attack the hitter, but you try to get them to chase a hard breaking ball or a high fastball. You should NEVER throw a 0-2 or 1-2 pitch in the zone.

Never say never. Surprise works.

Work that Rice Unconventional Wisdom...

Walt, if a pitcher NEVER throws an 0-2/1-2 pitch in the zone, a batter should NEVER take the bat off his shoulder on those pitches. How many times have we seen stellar Rice pitchers strike out batters looking on 3 pitches??

Looking on 3 pitches? Not that often.

(05-22-2014 05:08 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Reeves first pitch ground out to 3B. Awful AB. Come on, JC, make him work a bit.
Aquino first pitch 2-run bomb#6! A no-doubter, monster shot.

Come on, Michael, make him work a bit..