The Numbers Are In . . .

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

The All-Star and Wilson top-of-the-line HSMs are also safer against concussions than masks. .

I thought Tim C reported that MiLB's study did NOT find this to be true -- that there was no difference (in, what I admit, is not a scientific study).

You could also make the argument that the HSM's are less safe in terms of heat, the extra weight (in the cases where the head / neck does get extended), loss of hearing acuity. etc.

It might be true that a scientific stuydy would find that they are safer -- that is, umpires wearing them suffer fewer (and / or less severe) injuries than umpires wearing traditional masks. But, to make a blanket statement that it's obvious is, imo, wrong.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

The All-Star and Wilson top-of-the-line HSMs are also safer against concussions than masks.

In practice, the experience in professional baseball does not support your claim. Aside from promotional material, what is your source for this statement?

[dileonardoja]

Originally Posted by briancurtin

I'll counter this with an equally worthless statement: The HSM is not safer, period. You don't need a study to know that.

There is little doubt the HSM provides more overall protection. Whether or not protection from a concussion is better is the question

[briancurtin]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

All right, so I'll agree with you if that's what you need. So an exposed skull is better and safer than a skull protected by a hard plastic shell. And for that matter, exposed ears are a safer way to go than ears protected by a hard plastic shell.

I like a mask better too, but I wouldn't argue that they are safer. That's just ridiculous. Do you argue for the sake of argument? The All-Star and Wilson top-of-the-line HSMs are also safer against concussions than masks. And the view is better. But I still don't like them or the way they feel, despite the fact they are safer. To each their own.

You don't wear a protection piece for your back do you?

I have no reason for the back of my head to be covered, so I don't take any measure to protect it. I also have no reason for my ears to be covered, so I don't take any measure to protect them. If someone hits me in the back of the head with a beer can, that's a risk I was willing to take and someone got me on it. If I stood on top of the catcher and was within earshot of a swing (ba-dum-chh), yeah I'd probably want to protect my ears, but I'm trained a little better than that, and have no problem there. I understand people work different fields, including those clamshell backstops or backstops that are very close to them...but I do not, and therefore I do not need that type of protection.

I have heard a lot of people talk about HSMs really being safer against concussions, but have seen no real definitive backing on the physics aspect of this other than a small paragraph on the tag and people on internet message boards boasting about them. Sure, looking at it, it's pretty sleek. Does that prove anything to me? No. Has anyone proven anything to me on this topic? No. I wear a properly adjusted traditional style mask and have not had a problem. That's not to say I won't ever have a problem, but I don't feel the HSM gives me anything that I don't already have.

Also, I have debated the "better view" point for probably five years on this board and another board, and I'm not entirely interested in rehashing the topic, but in short summary: if you can already see everything you need to see, is it really "better" to be able to see even more? I don't need to see inside the dugout, but with an HSM there won't be a bar obstructing my peripheral vision directly to the right and left of me...yippie.

[briancurtin]

Originally Posted by dileonardoja

There is little doubt the HSM provides more overall protection. Whether or not protection from a concussion is better is the question

I have never doubted that a hockey helmet provides a higher quantity of protected surfaces on the head.
Your second statement is correct.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I thought Tim C reported that MiLB's study did NOT find this to be true -- that there was no difference (in, what I admit, is not a scientific study).

You could also make the argument that the HSM's are less safe in terms of heat, the extra weight (in the cases where the head / neck does get extended), loss of hearing acuity. etc.

It might be true that a scientific stuydy would find that they are safer -- that is, umpires wearing them suffer fewer (and / or less severe) injuries than umpires wearing traditional masks. But, to make a blanket statement that it's obvious is, imo, wrong.

I did a scientific study. I got drilled between the eyes wearing a titanium Wilson Shock effects HSM, and I barely registered a hit. I've been hit with a rock in the chin on a motorcycle helmet at 80 mph, a fullback's shoulder pads in the face guard of a football helmet, a high-80s fastball into a catcher's mask, a high-80s fastball into an All-Star steel catchers helmet, a low-90s fastball into a lightweight umpire mask, and a low-90s fastball into the Wilson. It doesn't even compare to the concussive effect of a similar shot to a regular mask. Not close. And whatever drop test, shock test or whatever test you want to do test says, the getting drilled in the middle of the face test is better.

Please read what I wrote about masks...you would see that I agree with the use of a traditional mask and the risks it poses. I was stating that a helmet is safer and by the very coverage and balanced protection it provides, it is safer! It is. With the floating cage, the Wilson is the safest. But I haven't made the switch because I'm traditional. I also depend heavily on skill and experience to avoid getting domed, or boxed, or clubbed, but I would never even begin to maintain that a mask is safer. Better for you, sure. Better for me too. Safer...no way.

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

And for that matter, exposed ears are a safer way to go than ears protected by a hard plastic shell.

Do you get hit in the ears often ? The only times I've ever seen it happen,
the umpire turned his head and caught it with his ear. In all my years of umpiring, I've never been hit in the side of the head with a ricochet or any foul or bouncing ball.
If an umpire does what he should and stay facing forward, the ear extensions
of a mask will protect them.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

I did a scientific study. I got drilled between the eyes wearing a titanium Wilson Shock effects HSM, and I barely registered a hit. I've been hit with a rock in the chin on a motorcycle helmet at 80 mph, a fullback's shoulder pads in the face guard of a football helmet, a high-80s fastball into a catcher's mask, a high-80s fastball into an All-Star steel catchers helmet, a low-90s fastball into a lightweight umpire mask, and a low-90s fastball into the Wilson. It doesn't even compare to the concussive effect of a similar shot to a regular mask. Not close. And whatever drop test, shock test or whatever test you want to do test says, the getting drilled in the middle of the face test is better.

How does that prove anything? If you were going to test something you would have to have it be the exact same pitch hitting each mask in the exact center of the mask. I mean some of your objects which hit you in the face weren't even baseballs. What does getting hit in the face with a rock or football shoulder pads have to do with proving that a goalie style mask is better than a traditional mask?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by umpduck11

Do you get hit in the ears often ? The only times I've ever seen it happen,
the umpire turned his head and caught it with his ear. In all my years of umpiring, I've never been hit in the side of the head with a ricochet or any foul or bouncing ball.
If an umpire does what he should and stay facing forward, the ear extensions
of a mask will protect them.

I've always hated this argument regarding HSMs. Yes, if everything is done correctly, a regular mask will protect what can be hit. However, as we've seen even MLB umpires flinch and get seriously injured as a result of it, no umpire is going to stay rock-steady on 100% of pitches. The HSM takes care of protection in those cases where a flinch occurs. Now, if it is used as a crutch, so to speak, to enable improper form, that is an entirely different issue.

[SAump]

Scientific results are inconclusive. But the only MLB catcher who may have been forced into early retirement due to multiple concussion injuries resulting directly from foul balls wore a HSM.

Can the same be said of the traditional baseball mask? I haven't heard or seen anything.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by umpduck11

Do you get hit in the ears often ? The only times I've ever seen it happen,
the umpire turned his head and caught it with his ear. In all my years of umpiring, I've never been hit in the side of the head with a ricochet or any foul or bouncing ball.
If an umpire does what he should and stay facing forward, the ear extensions
of a mask will protect them.

Two times I saw anything happen and both times it was a wood bat snapping off. One welt, and one gash. And once again, I am a mask wearer. I agree with you. I don't turn my head or duck and I have never needed a helmet and never called a game in one yet. I used a catcher's one when I was a catcher, and I tried a new Wilson at a workout when someone twisted my arm. There's no doubt that it absorbs a straight shot better than a mask. No doubt. But for the five straight shots per several thousand pitches, I will still take my stunners to have that light, easy to handle mask.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by LDUB

How does that prove anything? If you were going to test something you would have to have it be the exact same pitch hitting each mask in the exact center of the mask. I mean some of your objects which hit you in the face weren't even baseballs. What does getting hit in the face with a rock or football shoulder pads have to do with proving that a goalie style mask is better than a traditional mask?

You are kidding, right? Sorry to be so complex.

I was just trying to relate to you that I have had had a variety of bell-ringing helmet wearing experiences in addition to a lightweight umpire mask, and the Shock effects helmet takes a straight shot and absorbs more of the shock than any mask hit by any ball. Why is it so arguable? It's a high-tech, full-coverage titanium helmet for God's sake... of course it's more absorbent and safer. What color is the light at the top of the traffic signal? Let's throw that around for a while, I am sure we could get an argument going.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

You are kidding, right? Sorry to be so complex.

That's the problem--you weren't complex. You simply cannot back up the hypothesis that HSMs are safer by using one person's experiences with them in relation to other similar experiences, especially when all the data is qualitative and is also the product of the experimenter.

The only thing that will show any differences between HSMs and traditional masks is longitudinal study--of which professional baseball has started. The fact of the matter is that injuries are so relatively rare that to develop a usable amount of data is going to take time (a point which has already been made.) The study needs to be longitudinal because these injuries have so many contributing factors that the style of protection may not be the main cause of the injury, and the more data that is collected, the more the trends can be evaluated.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

I did a scientific study. I got drilled between the eyes wearing a titanium Wilson Shock effects HSM, and I barely registered a hit. I've been hit with a rock in the chin on a motorcycle helmet at 80 mph, a fullback's shoulder pads in the face guard of a football helmet, a high-80s fastball into a catcher's mask, a high-80s fastball into an All-Star steel catchers helmet, a low-90s fastball into a lightweight umpire mask, and a low-90s fastball into the Wilson. It doesn't even compare to the concussive effect of a similar shot to a regular mask. Not close. And whatever drop test, shock test or whatever test you want to do test says, the getting drilled in the middle of the face test is better.

Nonsensical. Completely.

[Kevin Finnerty]

We dropped a pre-1976 Spalding National League baseball and a post-1976 Rawlings National League rabbit ball off of the roof of a Century City skyscraper on a semi-deserted Sunday in 78, and the rabbit ball bounced almost an entire floor higher than the Spalding, proving scientifically that the ball was indeed juiced like the players were saying. (College experiments got way more dangerous than that.)

But in terms of overall protection, the HSM is more protective than a mask. In terms of shock absorbing, the very lightweight Wilson Titanium Shock Effects helmet is the softest blow I have ever taken to the middle of the grill by a baseball. Non-scientific, and just one man's opinion, but what is it based on, but some facts and some opinions? Helmet equals more protection, which is a fact, whether you think it's necessary or not. Ask Kerwin Danley. Mask is lighter, easier to handle and looks better in my opinion. But the Wilson is the best blow absorber by a good measure than even the best mask. Also my opinion as anyone can deduce by reading my message. The contention that Mike Metheney had to retire from concussions even though he wore a HSM was a pretty silly contention, but it went right by. A mask being safer than a HSM is also a silly contention.