Another telling thing for me is the number of MLB guys who have migrated away from the HSM.

Sound has nothing to do with concussions. A concussion is caused by a rapid change of velocity by the head, which causes the brain to move around within the skull.

You're right. I was thinking of a fluid-percussion type of brain injury, but wanted to dumb it down a bit. Sorry.

Hey,
 

Kyle some of us knew where you were going.

Regards,

You're welcome, good thing I am here to help.

Yeah, I don't know what we would do without you.:rolleyes:

Logic dictates nothing of the kind, only bad physics or a false assumption dictate that. :rolleyes:

Better physics dictates that the shock absorbers will absorb the component of the force vector that runs along their axis. That should be most of it, since the ball is most likely to hit the mask from the front.

The other way to reach your conclusion is to assume that the shock absorbers' job is to absorb 100% of the energy of every collision, which is not likely the engineers' conception.

The great thing about this whole debate, or any such Mask/HSM debate, is that it is not based on scientific facts, practical reality or anything logical. It is based on the biased belief of many that a mask, which they prefer, is as safe or effective as a helmet. A study is cited, and a trend is cited, but their conclusions are curious at best. I took a really good shot in a Wilson Shock FX, and it was the least impact I have ever felt from a shot of that type.

I prefer a mask. I probably always will. I keep getting a better and better mask with better and better pads, but unless I get an injury, I won't be switching to an HSM. I have caught games and bullpens with an All-Star HSM, and I have done informal demos with the new Wilson, but I have never worked a game in anything but a mask. But I would never hang on to the contention that a mask is safer than an HSM, just because I need validation for insisting on wearing a mask. There are added risks when wearing a mask, but I don't ever turn my head, and I've only been grazed by a bat once, so the added bulk of a helmet for something that virtually never happens is not for me. But a HSM is safer and the Wilson is the safest I have tried and gives the best view.

Perhaps. But your stance, to date, has been based on assumptions and your singular personal experience, which any reputable statistician or research specialist will identify as the worst evidence upon which to base conclusions.

I fully realize that, and my "stance" that you refer to is based on a sarcastic reference I made that my experience was a scientific finding. It was in the spirit of "I got your scientific study right here..." As a result, I am getting treated like I am representing a scientific study when I am making a point that everyone is free to use or believe whatever they want, but that in the rare case that a bat breaks or gets flung or swung near your ear, a HSM is safer, and that on a straight shot to the grill, a Wilson Shock FX softens the blow the best ...
from what I have been able to tell
in my very limited experience of four decades catching and umpiring.

a Wilson Shock FX softens the blow the best ...
Haven't you read the news?
Good news, the disertation I wrote on the subject was deleted.
3 major flaws in the choice of HSM: 1) design, 2) comfort, and 3) cost.
We could argue about the benefits and drawbacks of either style all night.

BTW, football helmet makers spend a lot more money on research.
Newer helmets allow for better air flow and upgrade fasemask, padding and shell technology.
You may have noticed some recent changes in the look of the LLWS baseball helmet too.
Despite the fact, the NY Giants are still wearing the old familiar NFL helmets on TV today.

You'll pardon me if I don't swallow the curious findings of a sampling of users in a "scientific" study on this subject. The brain is still a medical mystery ...how can you just read a conclusion like that about concussions and accept it and close yourself off to any other information? I am open to anything, but I don't just believe everything that is written. I try it out if it's important to me. I add what is written and reported to what I know or have found to be true about something. If you want to have your opinion formed by the writer only ...fine. I use a more broadly based method.