The Numbers Are In . . .

[Tim C]

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,

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Take this post with a large grain of salt.

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

[Pensaump]

Can you post a link to this article?

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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,

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?

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Take this post with a large grain of salt.
There was NO significant difference based on the type of equipment worn in either number or severity....

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...

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.

[johnnyg08]

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?

[Pensaump]

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???

[Kevin Finnerty]

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.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

The HSM is safer, period. You don't need a study to know that.

Originally Posted by Pensaump

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

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.

[briancurtin]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

The HSM is safer, period. You don't need a study to know that.

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

[Tim C]

"Can you post a link to this article?"

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.

[PeteBooth]

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