Scoring Systems

[Big Paulie]

Do not, will not and am not trolling, but thanks for your input anyway.

And besides it is all within the OP's original question.
Rob

You are not trolling? Then I am sorry my friend but you really don't get it.

Take 100% of 200 for example.
If bowler A averages 150, his handicap is 50. He shoots a 200 game, his handicap score is 250.
Bowler B averages 190, his handicap is 10. He has to shoot +240 to win that game.
Now tell me, which is easier? A 150 average bowler shooting 200, or a 190 average bowler shooting 240?
At 100% of 200, the lower average bowler has the advantage... for what? Being a less capable bowler?

Now take 80% of 200 with the same scenario.
Bowler A averages 150. Handicap is then 40. He shoots a 200 game... handicap score is 240
Bowler B averages 190. Handicap is then 8. He has to shoot a 233 to win (rather than +240 in the above scenario).
Now what is more likely? 150 shooting 200, or 190 shooting 233?
This is 'fairer', but there should still be an incentive to improve as a bowler, and not simply rely on a favourable handicap system to keep you competitive.

And remember, if the league has multiple 200+ bowlers, we increase the scratch score to suit which also benefits the lower average bowler.

Come on now, its not that difficult to understand.

 

[bowlrig]

You are not trolling? Then I am sorry my friend but you really don't get it.

Take 100% of 200 for example.
If bowler A averages 150, his handicap is 50. He shoots a 200 game, his handicap score is 250.
Bowler B averages 190, his handicap is 10. He has to shoot +240 to win that game.
Now tell me, which is easier? A 150 average bowler shooting 200, or a 190 average bowler shooting 240?
At 100% of 200, the lower average bowler has the advantage... for what? Being a less capable bowler?

Now take 80% of 200 with the same scenario.
Bowler A averages 150. Handicap is then 40. He shoots a 200 game... handicap score is 240
Bowler B averages 190. Handicap is then 8. He has to shoot a 233 to win (rather than +240 in the above scenario).
Now what is more likely? 150 shooting 200, or 190 shooting 233?
This is 'fairer', but there should still be an incentive to improve as a bowler, and not simply rely on a favourable handicap system to keep you competitive.

And remember, if the league has multiple 200+ bowlers, we increase the scratch score to suit which also benefits the lower average bowler.

Come on now, its not that difficult to understand.

1. I am not your friend.
2. Your wit and sarcasm are noted.
3. It is all about fairness and equality.

On the other side of your argument...... why should the more skilled bowler have more of an advantage than skill alone?

Rob

 

[Big Paulie]

1. I am not your friend.

Pfft... your loss

2. Your wit and sarcasm are noted.

An example of where I have used wit and/or sarcasm in any of my post would be appreciated.

Just to help you out:
Wit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sarcasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. It is all about fairness and equality.

Why bother keeping score then at all? Rather than turn up to bowl every week, lets meet in the woods, sit in a circle and sing kumbaya... I guarantee you it will be fair and equal then.

why should the more skilled bowler have more of an advantage than skill alone?

Because they have worked hard and earnt the right... perhaps it will encourage a lower average bowler to push themselves

And just a disclaimer... I am by no means a high average bowler

 

[RobbieB]

Take 100% of 200 for example.
If bowler A averages 150, his handicap is 50. He shoots a 200 game, his handicap score is 250.
Bowler B averages 190, his handicap is 10. He has to shoot +240 to win that game.
Now tell me, which is easier? A 150 average bowler shooting 200, or a 190 average bowler shooting 240?

I'm going to go out on a limb here - 30 years of working in bowling centres tells me that it is FAR more likely that a 190 average bowler will shoot 240+ than a 150 average bowler shoots 200. Game to game variance at higher averages is generally more than at mid-range averages. A 190 average bowler is probably already throwing 5ish strikes per game - nail 2 extra with no opens and there's 230-240. The flip side is that with 2 less and 2 opens he shoots 150-160. For the vast majority of 150 average bowlers throwing 200 is a very rare event.

Couple of other observations - first, there is absolutely no difference between negative handicaps and raising the cap above the highest average. Second, even at 100% handicap, USBC studies showed that higher averages still have an advantage. Why? - because when it comes to close games, higher skilled bowlers will deliver better results under pressure than less skilled bowlers. So good bowlers win more of the close matches. Handicap systems are there to give everyone a chance in recreational leagues. The different %ages all have a place IMO, but in a league where first place might buy a couple of slabs, people are there to enjoy themselves, and part of that is being in the hunt if you can bowl well in relation to your skill level. Nobody likes getting belted every week, which is what happens in low % systems. As far as the 'incentive to get better' argument goes, most people want to improve simply because getting better is its own reward.

We have a 100% with negative h/c system for our Thursday triples league. It's a strong league, with a huge variety of averages and skill levels. No team has won the league twice in a row for at least the last 8 seasons, and we went into the last weeks of the last season with 4 or 5 teams still in the running for 1st place. Team Tellytubby, carrying a respectable -30odd, finished a creditable 9th. With 100%, everyone walks in knowing they have a fair shot on the night - whats more, if they get some help and improve, then it actually makes the same difference to their chances whether they were averaging 120 or 190.
Strong leagues are the foundation of the sport. As bowlers want more of a challenge, they can migrate to stronger, more 'serious' leagues with lower %ages or even scratch. But etting them get belted every week in 'fun' leagues is not likely to foster a long-term interest in the sport.

 

[RobbieB]

An example of where I have used wit and/or sarcasm in any of my post would be appreciated.

Why bother keeping score then at all? Rather than turn up to bowl every week, lets meet in the woods, sit in a circle and sing kumbaya... I guarantee you it will be fair and equal then.

Another irony meter bites the dust....
edit - unless you were serious, in which case I'd have to find another example to get to a full wit..

 

[Big Paulie]

Another irony meter bites the dust....
edit - unless you were serious, in which case I'd have to find another example to get to a full wit..

You know that my comment 'An example of where I have used wit and/or sarcasm in any of my post would be appreciated.' was in reference to my previous post #21... post #23 was deliberate in both wit and sarcasm. Sadly it seems that you missed this

Moving on, and by no means was it my intention to hijack the thread, but you will also note that I never made reference to 'negative handicaps'. I completely agree that a negative handicap works in much the same way as raising the scratch score, but that isn't my argument here.

100% of X still favours the handicap bowler. Take out the fact that I disagree with your statement regarding 150 average bowlers struggling to bowl 200, my comment was in reference to how easy it is, not how likely or how common. You know yourself, you can string a few strikes together and manufacture a 200 game whilst still leaving open a decent number of frames. Try doing that for a 240 game.

80% of X is recognised as the fairest calculation - I'm not suggesting that I think all leagues should be 80% of X... far from it. I like to see a handicap set lower than 80%. As a middle of the field bowler, it gives me added motivation to compete with the high average bowlers. There is a time and place for all different systems. But to say that 100% of X is fairer than 80% is a joke, and to say that a higher average bowler should be disadvanted for being a higher average bowler will do nothing but remove an incentive for people to improve.

 

[jimcross]

I'm going to go out on a limb here - 30 years of working in bowling centres tells me that it is FAR more likely that a 190 average bowler will shoot 240+ than a 150 average bowler shoots 200. Game to game variance at higher averages is generally more than at mid-range averages. A 190 average bowler is probably already throwing 5ish strikes per game - nail 2 extra with no opens and there's 230-240. The flip side is that with 2 less and 2 opens he shoots 150-160. For the vast majority of 150 average bowlers throwing 200 is a very rare eve
Couple of other observations - first, there is absolutely no difference between negative handicaps and raising the cap above the highest average. Second, even at 100% handicap, USBC studies showed that higher averages still have an advantage. Why? - because when it comes to close games, higher skilled bowlers will deliver better results under pressure than less skilled bowlers. So good bowlers win more of the close matches. Handicap systems are there to give everyone a chance in recreational leagues. The different %ages all have a place IMO, but in a league where first place might buy a couple of slabs, people are there to enjoy themselves, and part of that is being in the hunt if you can bowl well in relation to your skill level. Nobody likes getting belted every week, which is what happens in low % systems. As far as the 'incentive to get better' argument goes, most people want to improve simply because getting better is its own reward.

We have a 100% with negative h/c system for our Thursday triples league. It's a strong league, with a huge variety of averages and skill levels. No team has won the league twice in a row for at least the last 8 seasons, and we went into the last weeks of the last season with 4 or 5 teams still in the running for 1st place. Team Tellytubby, carrying a respectable -30odd, finished a creditable 9th. With 100%, everyone walks in knowing they have a fair shot on the night - whats more, if they get some help and improve, then it actually makes the same difference to their chances whether they were averaging 120 or 190.
Strong leagues are the foundation of the sport. As bowlers want more of a challenge, they can migrate to stronger, more 'serious' leagues with lower %ages or even scratch. But etting them get belted every week in 'fun' leagues is not likely to foster a long-term interest in the sport.

I'll keep you company out on that limb. I've had similar experience over time, and bowled in every type and style of League / Tournament around. ( prefer scratch leagues - though my days of being able to win seem to be over ) I've been Bowler / Tech / Instructor, Coach / Asst Mgr AMF / Owned and ran independant Centre /. I have seen all similar examples as you have outlined. I agree with everything you've said

 

[mcpeter]

We set our scratch ave. at least 10 pins higher than last seasons highest average.
Last season 220, set ave at 230
Handicap 100% if both bowlers bowl average it's a draw as should be.
But no one bowls exactly average each game. That where the luck comes in, good luck if you bowl below average but still win. Bad luck if you bowl above and lose,good luck to the other bowler who bowled better than you to win.

 

[bowlrig]

Thankyou Robbie, but it seems we are still wrong though.

Rob

 

[BigDaz]

100% of X still favours the handicap bowler. Take out the fact that I disagree with your statement regarding 150 average bowlers struggling to bowl 200, my comment was in reference to how easy it is, not how likely or how common. You know yourself, you can string a few strikes together and manufacture a 200 game whilst still leaving open a decent number of frames. Try doing that for a 240 game.

Not trying to get involved in this tiff y'all are havin. But im just gunna note one thing, on a walled pattern a 150 ave bowler that bowls hook would likely jag a lucky 200 game here and there. But at the real centres that oil lanes properly(subjective i know, anyway) a 150 ave bowler will have a harder time cracking that nut. On the flip side somebody who bowls a 190 ave on those same conditions can obvisously spare and potentially throw good shots making 230-240 easier to hit, imho.

Back to the side line!

 

[Roysa]

2. Your wit and sarcasm are noted.

Rob

Thankyou Robbie, but it seems we are still wrong though.

Rob

...................

 

[Michael Little]

You are not trolling? Then I am sorry my friend but you really don't get it.

Take 100% of 200 for example.
If bowler A averages 150, his handicap is 50. He shoots a 200 game, his handicap score is 250.
Bowler B averages 190, his handicap is 10. He has to shoot +240 to win that game.
Now tell me, which is easier? A 150 average bowler shooting 200, or a 190 average bowler shooting 240?
At 100% of 200, the lower average bowler has the advantage... for what? Being a less capable bowler?

Now take 80% of 200 with the same scenario.
Bowler A averages 150. Handicap is then 40. He shoots a 200 game... handicap score is 240
Bowler B averages 190. Handicap is then 8. He has to shoot a 233 to win (rather than +240 in the above scenario).
Now what is more likely? 150 shooting 200, or 190 shooting 233?
This is 'fairer', but there should still be an incentive to improve as a bowler, and not simply rely on a favourable handicap system to keep you competitive.

And remember, if the league has multiple 200+ bowlers, we increase the scratch score to suit which also benefits the lower average bowler.

Come on now, its not that difficult to understand.

I agree with Robbie on this one, a higher average bowler is more likely to throw a 230-240 game than a 150 avg bowler throwing a 200. I have bowled a variety of leagues with various handicap, but any league where the maximum is below the highest averaging bowler, will generally always favour that higher average bowler, even bowled in a 100% of 200 league about 5 years back. Obviously this is the best example of a higher avg bowler having a head start based purely on their skill level.

The one point I would however like to make is that in the last few leagues I have participated in, the lane conditions have been fairly easy but not always so for my particular style (and no, I am not complaining about this, happy to cater for the majority), but when this occurs and the general league population have their league averages boosted, but still retain a significant handicap due to a generous handicap system, this is where the higher skilled or higher averaged bowlers starts to be disadvantaged, as not always easy to consistantly shoot 250+ plus games, but a 170-190 avg bowler that still has significant handicap can certainly bowl 220 plus games with not much hassle.

Another thing I have always found odd is that most leagues here in Newcastle do not permit a higher average bowler replacing a lower average player to sub for their league night, I can understand the principle but the reality is that the handicap system still stays in place and the substituting bowler if they were to normally play in that league would still have zero handicap.

I also agree with Rob, a handicap system should work as closely as possible to everyone being on equal footing.

 

[JWhitty]

I might be getting old, but I remember when these forums used to be actively moderated...

 

[androooo]

I might be getting old, but I remember when these forums used to be actively moderated...

It is, however, no rules have been broken that I can see.

Back to the topic.... Our handicap system is 90% of 230... They changed it to 230 because of one person. I did apologize to them.

 

[JWhitty]

It's not about breaking rules Androo, that's policing. I'm not having a dig, I just wanted the argument that seemed to be getting a little ruder and more personal to think about what they were saying.

 

[Big Paulie]

It is, however, no rules have been broken that I can see.

Back to the topic.... Our handicap system is 90% of 230... They changed it to 230 because of one person. I did apologize to them.

We also use 90% of 230. We play singles (sports pattern) 6 per pair head to head (ie 1st per game gets 6, 2nd gets 5, 3rd gets 4 etc). We do this for scratch and handicap and keep separate standing sheets. Rarely do you get someone at the end of the season topping both but some have figured highly in both. I enjoy this format.

 

[Baz]

"Take 100% of 200 for example.
If bowler A averages 150, his handicap is 50. He shoots a 200 game, his handicap score is 250.
Bowler B averages 190, his handicap is 10. He has to shoot +240 to win that game.
Now tell me, which is easier? A 150 average bowler shooting 200, or a 190 average bowler shooting 240?
At 100% of 200, the lower average bowler has the advantage... for what? Being a less capable bowler?

Now take 80% of 200 with the same scenario.
Bowler A averages 150. Handicap is then 40. He shoots a 200 game... handicap score is 240
Bowler B averages 190. Handicap is then 8. He has to shoot a 233 to win (rather than +240 in the above scenario).
Now what is more likely? 150 shooting 200, or 190 shooting 233?
This is 'fairer', but there should still be an incentive to improve as a bowler, and not simply rely on a favourable handicap system to keep you competitive.

And remember, if the league has multiple 200+ bowlers, we increase the scratch score to suit which also benefits the lower average bowler.

Come on now, its not that difficult to understand."

Now in both those cases if you have a bowler with a 230 league average in the league, if bowler A shoots his average he has either 200 or 190 therefore he gives away 30 or 40 pins start to the better bowler before they even walk on the lanes!!! Your bowler A might bowl a 200 game on a rare occasion, so what, he averages 150.

As you said, "Come on now, its not that difficult to understand."

 

[Big Paulie]

Now in both those cases if you have a bowler with a 230 league average in the league, if bowler A shoots his average he has either 200 or 190 therefore he gives away 30 or 40 pins start to the better bowler before they even walk on the lanes!!! Your bowler A might bowl a 200 game on a rare occasion, so what, he averages 150.

As you said, "Come on now, its not that difficult to understand."

Please read my whole post before commenting...

"And remember, if the league has multiple 200+ bowlers, we increase the scratch score to suit"

Clearly if you have 230 average bowlers, you don't set the scratch score at 200... or you apply negative handicaps as mentioned earlier.

Please move on, I have

 

[Casual Observer]

I might be getting old, but I remember when these forums used to be actively moderated...

Doesn't that and the next post by him "break the rules" by being irrelevant and off topic?

Now to the topic....

Correct me where I am wrong.
1. An average is what you are likely to bowl based on your previous performances. A 150 average bowler for example is likely to shoot games around the 150 mark, A 220 average bowler (while more than likely to be bowling at Mentone or some other ditch) will usually shoot around the 220 mark.
2. An average based on 80% of any upper limit that is greater than both of them will result in the 150 average bowler having a lower score should the two bowlers bowl to their usual ability.

There are a couple of points that come from this. First, there are probably not many 150 average bowlers at centres that lay a ditch (such as Keon, Mentone, Boronia and so on) and as such the scenario is unlikely to happen. Secondly, Rob is 100% correct when he says that anything other than 100% being used to calculate a handicap system will result in some inequality.

What other sport is there that allows people to be disadvantaged because they have less ability or experience?

 

[Big Paulie]

I know I said I was over it , but I promise this will be my final post on the subject.

If you are at all interested, have a read of An Analysis of Bowling Scores and Handicap Systems

There is a lot of information here based on mathematic calculation and probability, but if you jump down to the results section you will read the following:

the individual handicap system of 80% of the difference between the bowler's average and a base figure of 225 is the fairest handicap system to use in league or tournament play.

They mention the 'Remington Rand study' in this study, which found the following:

The Remingtom Rand study[8] processed over 100,000 league bowling scores and the results suggested that the individual handicap system of 80% of the difference between the bowler's average and a base figure of 225 is the fairest handicap system.

I am making an assumption here, but I would imagine that at some point in time the powers that be also decided that 80% of X was the fairest system - I refer to the TBA rule book:

RULE 333 HANDICAP - (Unless covered by a Leagues own Rules)
The handicap allowance shall be 80 percent and shall be figured on the difference between each individuals average and 200 scratch.
e.g. If the average calculated = 134
For handicap calculation, 200 - 134 = 66
Handicap (80% of 66) = 52
The calculation results in 52.8. Decimal places are not used and are therefore ignored.

Now obviously this assumes that nobody in the league has an average higher than 200, but hopefully you get where I am coming from.

I stand by my comment that 100% of X favours the lower average bowler. I know that others will and do disagree, but I can live with that. I can also live with bowlrig not wanting to be my friend.