The Numbers Are In . . .

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

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.

Do you have any way to prove that the shots you took with the HSM would have been worse with the standard mask? Can you prove that the shots you took with the standard mask would have been not as bad with the HSM?

You have no support for anything you have said. There are many variables which have an effect on what happens to you when the ball hits your face. What was the trajectory of the pitch? What was the speed? What part of the mask did it hit you in? Where you moving when it hit you? What stance were you using?

In order to say that one is safer than the other an experiment must be done controlling all the variables and only changing the mask.

PBUC says that after all their research they don't know which is safer. What makes you think you know more than them just because you've gotten hit hard 5 times wearing different kinds of masks?

[jkumpire]

Guys, technically you are right, FED does not mandate the HSM? But come on, the mandated helmet is almost an HSM, and more and more catchers are using an HSM. Personally I think the FED rule is bad, and the old style helmet/mask should be legal. For the first time last year in 30 years of umpiring did I see a HS catcher who turned his head so much he needed the mandated FED ear protection. And he needed it because he never learned how to catch and keep his mask forward. He wore the suit of armor for so long he never learned the fundamentals of catching, or how to protect yourself properly. That is FED's fault for their stupid catcher's helmet rule.

Having said all that: Please don't make the difference without distinction argument here.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

I did a scientific study. I got drilled between the eyes...

You are evidently unfamiliar with the distinction between a controlled scientific study and anecdotal evidence.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Do you have any way to prove that the shots you took with the HSM would have been worse with the standard mask? Can you prove that the shots you took with the standard mask would have been not as bad with the HSM?

You have no support for anything you have said. There are many variables which have an effect on what happens to you when the ball hits your face. What was the trajectory of the pitch? What was the speed? What part of the mask did it hit you in? Where you moving when it hit you? What stance were you using?

In order to say that one is safer than the other an experiment must be done controlling all the variables and only changing the mask.

PBUC says that after all their research they don't know which is safer. What makes you think you know more than them just because you've gotten hit hard 5 times wearing different kinds of masks?

"Nonsensical" ... "prove."

It truly is hard to know when some of you guys are kidding. The Wilson HSM absorbs more shock than any one of five different standard masks, according to ...me, a guy who did a lot of catching and a lot more umpiring and I have taken every kind of shot at every kind of speed off every kind of material, and the Wilson blow is significantly softer than any of the others. It's an opinion, OK? And I prefer a mask, OK?

... Can you prove it?

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You are evidently unfamiliar with the distinction between a controlled scientific study and anecdotal evidence.

And you are evidently unfamiliar with simple humor. Loosen up a little.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by LDUB

PBUC says that after all their research they don't know which is safer. What makes you think you know more than them just because you've gotten hit hard 5 times wearing different kinds of masks?

And the PBUC study is only over two years. If they continue collecting data over the years it's a pretty good bet that sooner or later they will know which is safer. Then again, it really may be true that neither is safer than the other. Time and more data will tell.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

And you are evidently unfamiliar with simple humor. Loosen up a little.

I, on the other hand, am thoroughly familiar with simple humor. When I see some, I'll point it out for you.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I, on the other hand, am thoroughly familiar with simple humor. When I see some, I'll point it out for you.

Now, that's not bad.