The Numbers Are In . . .
 

Take this post with a large grain of salt.

The first "definitive study" has been completed.

The PBUC has just completed a two year study that compares the number and severity of concussions of plate umpires. The study included both those that wear a traditional mask and those that wear the HSM.

The findings are:

There was NO significant difference based on the type of equipment worn in either number or severity.

I would make a couple of suggestions when reviewing these findings:

1) It is doubtful that the number of incidents was of a high enough number that it gives true empirical representations to make any final decisions and,

2) There was no base line established before the study so the information is only anecdotal, at best, and could be misleading.

The main reason I post is to show that at least someone is looking for proof that an HSM is, in fact, more protective.

Regards,

I'm going to use a whole bag until they do a really comprehensive study, because these findings sound like a bunch of horsebleep.

http://www.olivebranchtoyou.com/images/rllvrs/im_2.jpg

Can you post a link to this article?

Weren't many of the concussion that occurred to the MLB umpires the result of using the "New View" mask and not the conventional mask?

Also known as a "small sample size." In general, the longer PBUC collects data, the more accurate their conclusions will be.

This is the same reason you ignore broadcasters when they say, "Joe Schmoe hits .750 with 3 RBI against Clyde Closer." He likely has far too few ABs to draw a meaningful conclusion.

I will follow Tim's advice.

Nope
 

There is no "article" this is the white paper study that I have commented on.

Sorry.

Ozzy: This was a study on Minor League Umpires only. There are still more MLB serious injuries associated to those who work the scissors stance than any other single issue.

and i assume you'd have to have all concussions that were reported...what about the bell ringers that we're diagnosed one way or another? did the study account for that or not?

I'm having a hard time being convinced that the "new view" mask really makes that much difference.

A direct hit in the middle of your eyes is going to ring your bell no matter what. I have taken about 2-3 real "monster" shots using a Wilson Dynalite and in my opinion there is nothing that can stop a direct hit at high velocity.

I'm about to start using a "new view" mask here shortly. I chose it over the more common mask after looking at pictures between the two. My best guess is that it is easily less than 1 inch difference in depth.

A square hit is a square hit period, no matter low profile, bucket or regular.

My personal reason for choosing the new low profile mask was that from what I've read and heard there is quite a difference in the amount you can see. The ump-attire article even compared the new view masks "depth" as pretty much being the same as bucket helmets. I haven't heard anyone complaining about deflection related issues with bucket helmets.....?

Talking with a good friend of mine about choosing between the two types of masks and he made a good point. I mean we do have to "see" to "call" pitches right? So seeing better should be the ideal goal... at least in my opinion.. (and his, even though I just stole it!)

I honestly maybe get hit in the face mask about 1 in 7,500 - 10,000 pitches. Realistically I probably get a moderate hit to the face every 30 plate games or so. At best 1 "monster" hit a season, and to even get a hit where the angle of the bars would even help has to be the perfect storm.

So the way I see it, I'd rather have a better view of the pitch and "sacrifice" the "deflective properties" 99.99% of the time.

Am I on a lonely island by myself???

The HSM is safer, period. You don't need a study to know that. But is it worth the closed -in feeling, or the new-age look, or the cost? Maybe not. Every 100 games, I take a full shot to the middle of the mask, maybe five times. Anybody take more than that? And, I would say I have had one mild concussion in all the years.

This is a big-league concern.

A minor leaguer familiar with PBUC's statement put it this way. "Helmets protect better against impact to the sides and top of the head, but they have not shown, in practice, to protect any better from concussions due to shots to the front."

The figures I believe, only take into consideation the 230 some umpires in minor league baseball and for only the past two seasons. They are represented as percentages of those who use each type of mask, thus they are not skewed by the large majority of umpires who wear the traditional mask.

PBUC takes concussions very seriously and records each one. MiLB umpires, when first starting out, take a test to establish a baseline so that effects of concussions can be measured.

In regards to the new view masks: in practice, they have shown higher numbers of concussions per unit than either a traditional mask or helmet. PBUC has warned their umpires against wearing them for the last two seasons.

The reason that I questioned the New View masks is that there have been several incidents in our organization, all have been with the New View mask. One of the injured insisted that his New View did not take the hit from the ball as his old standard mask did. I personally have felt the difference and will not use the New View at all.

I have no experience with a HSM other than I tried a friends and did not like the feel at all. There is no question that it will protect you better than just a hat, that is for sure!

I also believe a factor to be considered is that some people are just more prone to concussions. Troy Aikman would be a perfect example. Concussions ended his career. Yet there are many quarterbacks who both took harder hits and were with more often with no issue like Jim Kelly. He wad probably hit more often and harder than Aikman. (Yes, I realize Aikman played home games on turf which is harder-- just an example)

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

Brian, However some disagree
 

The FED's lawyers (errr..... Rules committee, present company excepted) have decided the HSM is safer, that is why they mandated its use for players.

So there is evidence that at least one major rules-making body has decided that HSM's are safer.

I wear a bucket myself, and I see it as 6 of 1, half dozen of the other. But IMO, the new view mask is not as safe. I've worn it, and taken shots in it. But a regular mask/HSM is a toss-up.

There was no such mandate last season and I see none in the rule changes. Where did you get this information?

That is not correct. The device must have full ear protection and be NOCSAE certified.

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.

As an umpire I take the risk by wearing a normal mask. I don't think there is any increased risk by wearing a low profile mask for concussions however.

I will totally agree that bucket head's are the safest and for when the rare occasion a batter's back swing lets go of the bat and taps you in the noggin I will regret not having one. Bucket heads are the by all means the ultimate insurance in safety for umpires.

I think ultimately at least some percentage of umpires using them convert to the bucket after some freak beating to the head they take. Due to either poor plate mechanics or just a freak incident. Kinda like those guys that don't wear a throat guard until they take one to the throat.

But until then for me, the buckets are more to deal with and bulky, hot and look dumb in my opinion.

Catchers should wear them because they are at a much higher risk to take a back swing to the head. I see it probably 10-15 times a season at all level's I call.

On one last note (and being in the medical field myself) I'm willing to bet there is some degree of the insurance company(s) that provides coverage for the MLB Umpires Union that influences those MLB umpires that have had concussions, a proven neurological disorders and have a neurological history to wear the bucket head protector for compliance purposes.

This is all speculation, but maybe its some food for thought and another angle on this matter?

Yep,
 

Exactly. The "insurance issue" is the EXACT resason that umpire below the AAA professional level are no longer allowed to use the scissor stance.

Regards,

I don't know, I would think* that the flatter angle of the mask would be more prone to absorbing the energy of the ball striking the mask as opposed to deflecting it. Considering PBUC's warning to their umpires about these masks, and the fact I've had three major concussions in my life due to football, I'm not taking the risk.


*As in, I don't have any hard data to backup this theory.

I think that Brian's claiming that you haven't offered an argument at all -- you've just claimed that one's safer, with no evidence to support the claim.

In the scissors stance your chest is generally at a sharper angle to the ground than the box. This sharper angle causes your head to be up (distance from chin to chest) as opposed to the box. This angle of your neck gives your neck less of its natural 'shock absorbing' ability. Not only that but to be at this angle your neck is using more muscle thus increasing its resistance to other forces.

Here's an example you can do at home to demonstrate:

1) Sit at your computer desk straight up (or with your elbows on your desk to simulate the angle of your chest when working the box) looking at some point on the wall
2) While sitting straight/elbows on knees up look up at the ceiling.
3) Notice how far your head moved and how easy it was.
4) Now sit at your desk crouched forward, say with your elbows on your knees. This may be a similar angle of your chest if you were working the scissors.
5) With your elbows on your knees look up

Notice the difference in your head mobility. You weren't able to look directly up, were you? And it wasn't as easy.

This is the same principle as when you're hit in the mask with a ball. Sitting up or from the box your neck has more ability and movement to absorb the impact, than crouched over or in the scissors.

This extra resistance can cause more injury.

My .02
 

Maybe Tim will check back in, but I was under the impression that the ban on the scissors stance was due to the amount and severity of the back and neck injuries from the prolonged use and stresses of the stance and not the from the effects of impacts from the baseball....

Tim???

Gotcha ...thanks.

But I guess my answer to that contained the argument. I thought it was obvious in the first place and not in need of explanation why a full helmet is safer than a mask.

Your head was designed to be supported by your body. When you lean forward, your neck muscles must strain to support the weight of your head. This position leads to strain, stress, and injury.

You don't have to take my word for it. Insurance companies make money by managing risk. They've prohibited the stance in MiLB to reduce this particular risk.

And I read here some time back... I think it was Tim C. who said that you wear your mask fairly loose so that it dangles somewhat when you look down. It causes the mask to spin off when you get any kind of indirect shot, and it deflects a lot of the shock. I swear by that, and it takes away the sting of all but the dead-center shots, which are rare, anyway.

Ok,
 

A couple have already toned in but here is the example as given by MLB to their umpires:

Take a tennis ball and hold it straight out in front of you, elbow locked, and hold it for 2 minutes.

Take a bowling ball and hold it straight out in front of you, elbow locked, and hold it for 2 minutes.

The difference between the outcome of these two tests is the exact outcome your spine has when you work the scissors.

Regards,

Tee since we are on this subject matter (meaning safety) just curious if you have any info on the deciding factor when MLB abandoned the old traditional baloon in favor of the current CP.

Was it simply a matter of style? as it would seem to be much safer using the baloon than the inside CP.

The reason I ask is that if the PBUC is really interested in the safety of umpires then they would not have abandoned the old baloon in favor of the CP to begin with.

An umpire is much more exposed using the CP then the baloon.

Thanks

Pete Booth

The real issue, at least to me, isn't whether or not a HSM is safer. The issue is whether or not "safer" is needed. We could make the argument that standing behind a shatter proof plexiglass shield is safer, but then we have to determine whether or not it's needed. And since we know it's not............

You should be able to connect the dots.


Tim.

You think wrong

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Loosen the harness
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nonsensical. Completely.

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.

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?

Men, sorry about the late take...
 

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.

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

"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? :D

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

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.

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.