The most expensive mask

[johnnyg08]

So would you spend $550 on the mask cardinalfan? There are thousands of umpires out there who don't use it and are safe w/ their < $200 masks...

Certainly it's 100% your choice..but it seems like an unnecessary expense for no guarantee that it's any safer than a $100 mask.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Certainly it's 100% your choice..but it seems like an unnecessary expense for no guarantee that it's any safer than a $100 mask.

Guarantee?!?

Come on, Johnny ... The strongest materials, the best coverage---of course it's safer than any mask. We're not going to start this again are we?

I'm an old school mask guy like you, but I am not going to assert that a mask could possibly be as safe as a HSM.

[johnnyg08]

nah...didn't intend to start an argument/debate over what's safer (although when I reread my post...it does lean that way)...I agree that the HSM has better protection than traditional masks...i don't want to hijack the thread down that path...

[Kevin Finnerty]

Geez, when I re-read your post, you seemed to be saying HSM, but didn't specify.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Guarantee?!?

Come on, Johnny ... The strongest materials, the best coverage---of course it's safer than any mask. We're not going to start this again are we?

I'm an old school mask guy like you, but I am not going to assert that a mask could possibly be as safe as a HSM.

Of course the HSM protects more of the head, but for a straight on shot do you have some type of information to back up your claim that a HSM is safer than a standard mask? If you don't then you have no way of knowing which is safer.

[greymule]

After decades with various masks, I've used that Kevlar All-Star helmet for the past four seasons. Although the link doesn't give a model number, it's undoubtedly the UMP2000. Incidentally, $545 is pretty steep. It listed for $395 when I bought it, and the selling price was $320.

All-Star makes a couple of much less expensive helmets that look very much like it. The distinctive difference might be the color of the cage, but I'm not sure. The MLB catchers' helmets are identical, except that they don't have the "Pro-Tanium" cage and do of course have the team artwork.

At any rate, it's a superb piece of equipment. Not heavy, great vision, total protection. Engineered to deflect almost every shot, so jolts are rare. Another advantage is that it always cleans up to look new (except the pads, of course).

Disadvantages are those inherent in helmets. A bit hotter, despite the advertising claims. Hard to pull it off and keep your hat on. If you don't wear a hat, you have to find a way to keep the sweat out of your eyes. And shots that hit the "Pro-Tanium" cage sound like a firecracker going off.

One other point: the vision is so good that you really don't need to take it off. I always do, though, just because that's the custom.

By the way, I've never personally seen another one in use by any umpire not in the pros.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Of course the HSM protects more of the head, but for a straight on shot do you have some type of information to back up your claim that a HSM is safer than a standard mask? If you don't then you have no way of knowing which is safer.

I answered this, but I guess my response violated some kind of rule about how you can respond to certain insiders, irrespective of how they treat you or others.

Well, let's see ... no, I don't have any scientific studies. The protection is just superior, sir, with all due respect. But if you don't feel that's the case, then, of course, I no longer believe that's the case.

How's that?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

I answered this, but I guess my response violated some kind of rule about how you can respond to certain insiders, irrespective of how they treat you or others.

Well, let's see ... no, I don't have any scientific studies. The protection is just superior, sir, with all due respect. But if you don't feel that's the case, then, of course, I no longer believe that's the case.

How's that?

So you admit to not having anything to back up your wild claim. Currently no one knows which is safer and for your to pretend like you do is just incorrect. You saying "the protectiuon is just superior" does not make it true.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by LDUB

So you admit to not having anything to back up your wild claim. Currently no one knows which is safer and for your to pretend like you do is just incorrect. You saying "the protectiuon is just superior" does not make it true.

Thank you for being there. It's nice to know there is someone out there to rely on for the ultimate point of view.


For the record: I have caught with a Rawlings, an All-Star and an Easton and taken many high velocity blows. I have recently tested the Shock FX by being purposely drilled by college pitchers. I have taken straight blows to the grill with four different buckets and every single one of them offers a less jarring blow than any mask. The Shock FX is the most resilient of them all. Even a decent bucket offers a less jarring blow on straight shots to the face than any mask after years of personal testing. Everyone I have ever known to discuss the subject makes the same attestation. Every single one.

Luckily, I am blessed with an open-mindedness that doesn't cause me to doubt absolutely everything unless there is some $cientific $tudy to prove whatever point that the interested parties want proven. I am neither that naive, nor that gullible, nor that intractable.

Yeah, right, "currently no one knows which is safer," except all of us who have used both extensively for many years and dozens of blows. I'll continue to pretend that I know that a bucket is safer, while I continue to use a mask for umpiring.

$cientific $tudy ...

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Thank you for being there. It's nice to know there is someone out there to rely on for the ultimate point of view.


For the record: I have caught with a Rawlings, an All-Star and an Easton and taken many high velocity blows. I have recently tested the Shock FX by being purposely drilled by college pitchers. I have taken straight blows to the grill with four different buckets and every single one of them offers a less jarring blow than any mask. The Shock FX is the most resilient of them all. Even a decent bucket offers a less jarring blow on straight shots to the face than any mask after years of personal testing. Everyone I have ever known to discuss the subject makes the same attestation. Every single one.

Luckily, I am blessed with an open-mindedness that doesn't cause me to doubt absolutely everything unless there is some $cientific $tudy to prove whatever point that the interested parties want proven. I am neither that naive, nor that gullible, nor that intractable.

Yeah, right, "currently no one knows which is safer," except all of us who have used both extensively for many years and dozens of blows. I'll continue to pretend that I know that a bucket is safer, while I continue to use a mask for umpiring
$cientific $tudy ...

Lighten up. His point is simple and apparently accurate...there has been no study to determine which is safer. There are plenty of conclusions based on individual observations and there is much anecdotal evidence.

Some will choose to accept that which is available as Gospel. Some will defer until they see reliable data.

Does anyone really care?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

I have taken straight blows to the grill with four different buckets and every single one of them offers a less jarring blow than any mask.

Did you control the possible variables such as speed of the ball, where it contacts the mask, position of the head....? If not then you can't say that any mask is better as each blow to your head was different. I could take 50 blows to the mask by pitches moving at the same speed but only be injured by one of them. The fact that you haven't got hurt yet using the HSM doesn't actually mean anything.

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

The Shock FX is the most resilient of them all.

What about the PBUC study saying that the Shock FX users were injured more often than other HSM users? I know that study has a small sample size but the fact that you reached the conclusion that it is the best mask and PBUC says it is the worst proves the point that one cannot judge a mask by only how often its users get hurt. One must control the variables in order to reach a definitive conlusion.

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Yeah, right, "currently no one knows which is safer," except all of us who have used both extensively for many years and dozens of blows. I'll continue to pretend that I know that a bucket is safer, while I continue to use a mask for umpiring.

If the odds of getting injured by a baseball hitting you in the mask are 1 in 50 then you saying you were hit dozens of times doesn't really matter. 36 shots to the face without getting hurt doesn't mean that your mask is super awesome when the odds of getting injured with the average mask are 1 in 50. Everyone on here knows that the HSM may be safer but no one knows for sure. It is weird that you fail to see what is obvious to many others.

[cardinalfan]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

So would you spend $550 on the mask cardinalfan? There are thousands of umpires out there who don't use it and are safe w/ their < $200 masks...

Certainly it's 100% your choice..but it seems like an unnecessary expense for no guarantee that it's any safer than a $100 mask.

Heck no. Just a joke.
I alternate between a Wilson Shock HSM and a conventional mask.

I would like to see a picture of the mask, though. Just curious.