Which is the better bowling performance?

[JWhitty]

Okay, lets try and keep this one to a sensible discussion...

Background: I have made a little system for storing tournament statistics. I've been punching in scores for events (only takes 15 minutes to enter and cross check a whole squad, fortunately). At the end of this exercise I'll be opening it up to the public for comment and requests on statistics - initially it's only going to report on what I can think of as useful.

ANYWAY, that's not ready to talk about yet but I hope explaining why I'm asking the question might help to keep the discussion on track.

I've entered the Cup qualifying from this weekend, and it highlights 225+ games. It also marks a bowlers high and low games.

I noticed two bowlers in the cut who didn't get a highlight, no big games at all;

Mick Little qualified 13th, with the highest "low game" of the event of 173 - everybody else bowled at least one game worse than 173. His high game is only 208. That's ten games in a row with no more than 33 pins difference game to game (the low of 173 was backed by a 206).
Paul Sutton qualified 8th, with a low of 171 (third lowest low game behind Mick and Christian Purdue's 172) and a high of 215. Aside from Micks 208, the 215 high is the lowest high game down until 23rd (Morty Douglas 204), well outside the cut.

Before actually posing my question, I am NOT asking about which person is the better bowler. The fact that it was Mick and Paul that bowled the two series I'm using is irrelevant, all of these guys can do different things on different days. I AM talking about the scores posted, as an anonymous block of games...

Without wanting to compare people and making it personal, I'd like to know how people feel it compares to the 6th qualifier (Sorry to Brendan Meads!). Brendan's low game (159) is middle of the pack in terms of the qualifiers, no issue there. The interesting point is that his series only contains one honour score and it was 277.

Saw in raw numbers, one bowler (Paul in this case) bowled 1954 with a 34 pin variance and a high of just 215. The other bowler (Brendan in this case) bowled just 13 pins more in total with a 118 pin variance and a high of 277 in the middle.

The question;
Which block of scores is 'better'?
Is total pinfall all that matters in our sport? It's all that matters when it comes to the end of qualifying for sure, but then the same question could be asked of the 5th and 6th qualifiers on equal pinfall, with Andrew rolling a 136 to finish equal with Brendan.

Once again please no comparing the people involved, it's all about the scores.

 

[John_Velo]

Hey Jeff,

For me it will always be consistency that is a higher priority.

Sure we all have a good game and a bad game. It is just how you see the pair you are on. I have said this many times in league, I would rather turn up and know that every where I bowled I could throw a 200-220 every game than bowl a 300.

 

[jimcross]

Was the format 'change lanes after each game' ?
If so, or indeed whatever the format, would not an improving score, game to game, on a pair of lanes ( regardless of actual score ) be an indication of knowledge and ability to adjust quickly to conditions? Relevant ?

 

[Shayne Melton]

Wouldn't the better bowling be the guy who finished the highest. It's all about getting the most pins down. I would rather bowl with a 150 pin difference between my high and low games and cut then be consistent and not cut.

 

[Bigsy]

Wouldn't the better bowling be the guy who finished the highest. It's all about getting the most pins down. I would rather bowl with a 150 pin difference between my high and low games and cut then be consistent and not cut.

Agreed !!!

As long as you win, who cares how you do it. You may walk away the winner and be upset at the way you bowled, but the fact is.....YOU WON !!!

It's like a golfer shooting par all day, and then having a guy shoot 10 birdies and 8 bogeys.

Bigsy !!!

 

[jimcross]

Hard to logically disagree with Shane or Bigsy. Hard to do better than win, but it really only satisfies the question - " Which is the better bowling performance?",- if it relates only to one specific event, in which case, why even bother to ask the question ?

Overall, on a system of, say, selection for a team or rep, being simply on the number of wins, bowler 'A' may come out on top, but bowler 'B' on a system of 3 points for first, 2 points for second, and 1 for third, comes out in front.

Purely my opinion, but as a selector, I think I'd pick bowler 'B'.

 

[John_Velo]

Hey Jim,

Every dog has their day. But the dog that is consistent will cash more often. I would prefer to cash every event than win one, not cut in the next four then win another, not cash in the next six.....

Chances are you will not win with a 150 in match play, you will more times than not win with a 250+.

With a 220 your chances of winning are greater on average. So if every game is going to be around that score, you will end on top more than on the bottom.

But as I said, every dog has their day and as long as your happy with the result.

 

[becka_girl]

Yes it is great to be consistant but its those 250+ games that get you up there really. On any other pattern I think the 159 would have cost Brendan but on this pattern everyone is struggling so a 150 won't do too much damage.

 

[dishman]

Good question. I think consistency is more important than a high score. With analogy to golf, no one hole can win you the champioship, but one shocker can certainly lose it for you.

 

[Ash]

I have to say, in the context of the question, and relating to tournament qualifying, Highest pin fall wins out, no question.

However, objectively speaking, removing the situation, if you showed me the scores from bowler "A" and "B" side by side, and asked which was the better bowler, I would probably say the most consistent one.

That being said, as I said before, in a tournament, highest pin fall, no matter how the games are, count the most. As other guys have said, it doesn't matter how you get the pins, as long as you have more than the other guy, then it's better.

Consistency is great and all, but if being consistently below the cut line doesn't win you any money, besides, if you shoot a 277, your differential is going to have to be pretty big if you think about it, unless you average like 240-250...

 

[DrewC]

I have always been taught practice for perfection but once you're in competition its all about how many. Whats the end stat or outcome you are trying to produce?

 

[magpi17]

Jim, it was 2 game blocks and 4 lane across changes.
I think that as the lanes transition through the day and you have a tough pattern like this 1 you have a lot of bowlers trying to find a spot, trouble was some people tried down and in and others tried to overpower the pattern. Both styles had the good and bad areas. Tournaments have a lot of different styles so you are always going to get the differential as soon as 1 line gets happening someone would take it out on your next set of lanes. it happens everywhere, also when the better bowlers know that they are safe they sometimes will try something different so this will sometimes go wrong. People like me will always have huge differentials as I am not consistent but hey its enjoyable. Nothing like a tough pattern to make you realise your true ability.
I think that a comparison of Tournament and League scores would be interesting, believe it or not my league average is 176 at Taree but my tournament average is normally better than this. Puzzle you it does me to!

 

[jimcross]

magpie17, thanks for that. what I was thinking was that when a lane change was made - especially on a difficult condition, those that could read the condition and adapt, would have a higher second game more of the time. It's a bit hard to explain what I mean, but in any case it's probably not all that relevant, as it would be surprising, I suppose, if the same people were not in the top grouping of the highest overall scores.
I think you may be underestimating the part your mind plays with scores of league V/S tournaments. Some people get worse under pressure, and some get better. Luckilly, like you, I usually got better, I was usually 10 - 15 pins better in tournaments, which took me from minus to plus. Keep it up and you'll probably increase both.

 

[magpi17]

I understand what your saying Jim and I agree its all about knowledge and a lot of the time self confidence.
The people who scored constantly on the weekend and in most tournaments are the people that have a shot that while not striking will not leave splits and pick up their spares, my best game was a game that I only scored 188 but gee I threw it well just couldn't strike but closed all frames, then as they play the pair longer they adapt to the condition. I feel that that is what is so good about watching the good players and spares win matches as was shown. From my perspective I like to watch the good guy's struggle, not to be vindictive or detrimental to them but I watch how they adapt and try to take it in for future reference. I took plenty in on the weekend!
So my real answer is what is the best performance is simply the guy who adapts and can turn an ordinary block into a good game especially when it is needed (Jason Walsh in the last block comes to mind) mainly as he needed to perform to make the cut and he did.

 

[BigDaz]

I understand what your saying Jim and I agree its all about knowledge and a lot of the time self confidence.
The people who scored constantly on the weekend and in most tournaments are the people that have a shot that while not striking will not leave splits and pick up their spares, my best game was a game that I only scored 188 but gee I threw it well just couldn't strike but closed all frames, then as they play the pair longer they adapt to the condition. I feel that that is what is so good about watching the good players and spares win matches as was shown. From my perspective I like to watch the good guy's struggle, not to be vindictive or detrimental to them but I watch how they adapt and try to take it in for future reference. I took plenty in on the weekend!
So my real answer is what is the best performance is simply the guy who adapts and can turn an ordinary block into a good game especially when it is needed (Jason Walsh in the last block comes to mind) mainly as he needed to perform to make the cut and he did.

love watching jason but i cant lie, i wanted to be in 16th, not 17th lol. Would of felt weird playing a match play at a National Event, and seeing the likes of Walshy and even Jarrod Lean on the sidelines, who played brilliantly at NSW Open.

Back on topic, im divided. As of late i have been more worried about making shots than scores, and strangely enough thats increased my scores. At the end of the day the higher pinfall gets it done for me, even if it makes one feel dirty.

Also about having a bigger differential, could you argue that When a bowler has a bad block or 2, but then recovers with some nice games, is that inconsistant? or is that a player finding form and showing some true talent/skill

To reference myself i started the Aus Cup even with the card after 2 games, then had 2 bad blocks. i said to myself "right 210 average gets me a -100 after 10 games, from here that will be an acheivement" I set a small but accheivable goal, and basically succeded (got to 188.9 average, shot about 810/4 to finish) Does that show inconsistancy or .... awesomeness?

 

[twenban]

I think the best bowling performance is winning an event you don't have a shot in .... actually adjusting and controlling your emotions making difficult shots under pressure. It's easy to win or bowl well when you have a shot your truly comfortable with but you truly have to bowl and compete well when you don't.

 

[androooo]

It's like a golfer shooting par all day, and then having a guy shoot 10 birdies and 8 bogeys.

No offence, but if I had 8 bogeys, I'd be pissed

 

[BigDaz]

When im pissed 8 bogeys is a brilliant result if im honest