Question re: Plate Shoes and Schutt HSM

[Razzer]

On 2/23/2019 at 11:23 AM, MadMax said:

Kyle, this has to be one of the most succinct explanations regarding this topic we've had yet.

There hasn't been anything beyond token research and testing on the merits, or demerits, of the two systems. Indeed, the HSM as we know it today grew out of the need to progress beyond this: 

 

Because youth catchers could not be trusted to properly wear masks and helmets, and stemming from Little League's push to champion their two-ear-flap development (they're the ones that started it), they took a twin-flap batting helmet, sawed off the front, and bolt-and-strapped an otherwise conventional mask to it. Kids hated it (I know! I was one of them!). It was hot, heavy, stuffy, had very limited sightlines, and was painful and problematic to take on and off. Also, kid catchers looked nowhere as cool as their pro idols. And let's face it, lookin' cool sells.

Meanwhile, in the pros, the conventional solid-steel-wire mask may have been teamed up an ear-flap-less batting helmet (the visor'ed skullcap), but they too were heavy, cumbersome, and useless to wear during collision plays, because you really couldn't see anything out of them. That changed in 1996, when Charlie O'Brien had a moment of inspiration and approached Van Velden Mask Inc. (of Hamilton, ONT... @Razzer might know of this) to develop the archetype "hockey style mask". Their efforts became the All-Star MVP, which debuted on September 13, 1997. O'Brien maintained that the HSM afforded him better distribution of impacting force because of "vectoring", and that because a baseball, being spherical and naturally deforming, wouldn't strike with any more full-frontal-force than a hockey puck. Here's the complete article: 
http://puckjunk.com/2018/03/29/the-evolution-of-baseballs-goalie-mask/

The first All-Star MVP's construction borrowed the same laminate matrix – of fiberglass, Kevlar, and other plastics – and used the same planform (shell shape), complete with its own appropriate wire cage. The problem became mass production: hockey is a rather specialized sport, with a limited quantity of goalies needing such a premium-quality produced mask. Junior / amateur goalies were still utilizing conventional mask constructions like this:
  

There's also a very on-point forum discussion about this here:
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/why-dont-goalies-wear-the-hasek-style-mask-anymore.1899293/
... with three poignant, relevant (to baseball) posts...
 

So the NFHS, at some point, recognized that the HSM gave the amateur ballplayer the best of all worlds – it gave total head coverage, it did a better job at deflecting impacts, and it could be taken off and put on reasonably well without compromising safety. Remember how I mentioned the problem with mass production? There are significantly more amateur catchers & ballplayers than goalies & hockey players. So, in order to get ease- and cost-of-production down, the manufacturers were allowed to use ABS and injection-molded plastics (instead of fiberglass and kevlar), and to ease the cost of engineering development, they all used the same planform. Sure, a few companies here and there (All-Star, Easton, Mizuno, etc.) have forked off onto other planforms based on feature testing, not so much to develop better protection, but to create a better shape for vision, ventilation, and for throwing while leaving the mask on. Most companies (Worth, Louisville Slugger, etc.) have stuck with the same planform, though, and there has been no further development or enhancement. Since NOCSAE is not truly independent, but is instead made up as a consortium of representatives from all the vested manufacturers, if a planform is greenlit (approved), it tends to stay as such year-to-year, and gets circulated to all the manufacturers, unless a patent is applied. Point is, there's been no incentive to improve the HSM because to do so would mean that you'd have to have that new planform tested by NOCSAE (thus, by your peers and competitors) and approved, which is financial risk. Most companies, aside from the likes of All-Star (who has their own independent testing apparatus), Easton, Mizuno and Wilson (who has a very staunch copyright and patent law team employed), don't have the capital to invest in further developments, and are, at best, treading water, banking on youth baseball organizations needing to buy "anything approved" each and every year at the lowest bargain price point.

Through all this, though, there hasn't been a definitive, exhaustive study of the forces involved. All that anyone's really cared about is whether or not a particular HSM model has the NOCSAE approval mark on it, and all that NOCSAE really cares about is the HSM's integrity, not the performance. To NOCSAE and NFHS's credit, though, the forces involved are contextually relative, and there is more concern about a bat slipping out of a batter's grip and smacking a catcher in the side of the head, or that same catcher turning his head in (improper) avoidance of a skipping pitch. Of course, as the skill level increases, so do the velocities and forces involved. NOCSAE and NFHS only has responsibility and focus on amateurs at 18 or younger, and for the most part, they have been able to survive at that relative status quo.

However, there is one glaring absence in this entire topic: the Plate Umpire. To this day, nothing in the realm of helmets or masks has been designed for the Plate Umpire specifically. The majority of protective need for the plate umpire is frontal. Whereas catchers are taught or conditioned to drop their chins to block and deflect a pitched baseball, Plate Umpires are conditioned to keep their heads as stock-still as possible. A great deal of a catcher's HSM construction is designed from shell-inward, since an impact with the ground or the dugout bench is far more frequent and repetitive than a pitch, batted ball, or a bat itself striking the HSM's shell. Thus, the manufacturers have to devote a considerable amount of weight and balancing production cost into making a durable external shell. By contrast, a Plate Umpire's mask should never touch the ground, let alone be dropped on the ground, unless it has been knocked off his face by a ball impact. Therefore, there is a sparkling opportunity to devote more absorptive materials and structures to dispersing, absorbing, and deadening impact force for those rare events when it does occur... but not one manufacturer has approached it (yet) because in their view, Plate Umpires are too few and too specialized to be financially attractive to their profit margins. Wilson's termination of the Shock-FX HSM in favor of the Pro Stock is an ugly, itchy, festering sore-of-an-example of how a corporation regards catchers versus Umpires. I wouldn't vilify Wilson as much as I do had they streamlined the Shock-FX's production, limited or revamped it to be a for-Umpires model, and produced it and the Pro Stock concurrently. Instead, they ended it, full stop.

To date, only one company has actively endeavoured to address frontal impacts, and that is Force3 with the Defender spring-suspension system. Is it perfect? No. Is it the best option going right now? Yes. Their HSM version unfortunately fell into the same pitfall that other HSMs fall into – because of how NOCSAE conducts their test and grants approval, the Defender V1's shell planform had to be an existing planform, and the spring suspension shoehorned and bolted into it in a less-than-ideal manner. Once the Defender "technology" has been submitted to patent, and the unit has received the all-too-valuable NOCSAE approval, now we are seeing drastic improvements in the Defender V2 HSM. Its design (and its cost) encourages a more refined use by catchers at all levels, such that the catcher should leave it on the majority of the time. Indeed, the "high-end" models from All-Star, Easton, Rawlings – and now Wilson with their Pro Stock – encourage leaving the HSM on as much as possible, due to their improved sightlines and optimized construction. The Force3 Defender takes it one step further and puts an active spring-suspension on it, further absorbing the impact before it reaches the shell.

There's just one problem with this, when it comes to the Plate Umpire: We are scrutinized regarding taking the mask off for (all) calls and post-pitch / post-hit plays. Even if we are in ideal position, with "perfect" sightlines through the minimal cage of the best-of-market HSM, we still are going to catch flak from someone (coach, player... or evaluator) regarding our wearing of the HSM during the making of the call.

https://www.mlb.com/news/lindsay-berra-old-school-catchers-masks-help-protect-from-concussions/c-62938052

 

This was his first mask and it is a goalie shell Fibre and some kevlar in the head ind chin

100 % Van Veldon Shell...I know because I have a few still, this shell was such a tank many goalies here in Ont still use them 

Later the company went bust and KOHO bought the molds

[BT_Blue]

i still have nightmares of the one season I had to wear the first mask/helmets pictured above in my one season of playing Big League. That was after 4 seasons of high school and 2 in Babe Ruth wearing a two piece mask/skully.

[BT_Blue]

22 minutes ago, Razzer said:

This was his first mask and it is a goalie shell Fibre and some kevlar in the head ind chin

100 % Van Veldon Shell...I know because I have a few still, this shell was such a tank many goalies here in Ont still use them 

Later the company went bust and KOHO bought the molds

It sure was fun listening to Stan go into the creation of the first HSM for O'Brian! Its history and stuff like this that I would really love to get into whenever he does his next video.