Scoring Systems

[RobbieB]

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.

Did you even read the study you quoted? It's a piece of donkey number crunching to prove the guy (who obviously knows nothing about bowling) is worthy of a Masters. They are marking the method, not the results. And apart from being based on one season of FIVE pin bowling, the only handicap systems investigated were 80% of 225, 75% & 66% of 200 and 66% of 220. So sure, 80% is the fairest - OF THE 4 SYSTEMS EXAMINED!
Also: "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. We tried to get more information about
the Remington Rand study and their criteria of "fairest". Unfortunately we did not get
any reply from the Ontario 5 Pin Bowlers' Association on this matter."

As far as the TBA rules go, they were written in the good old days when believe it or not a 170 average made you a pretty good bowler. There simply wasn't the scoring disparity we see now between the unskilled, moderately skilled and expert bowlers.
Now, I am not suggesting that every league use 100% - or any league for that matter - that will depend on the individual league and its members, and what those members want from the league. But in terms of putting the bowlers on an equal footing, only 100% does that. Any less than that and the decision is simply how much of his skill advantage the higher average bowler gets to keep.

 

[bowlrig]

The USBC recommends 100% handicap.

Just for the sake of doing it, I did some comparisons from our singles league last season. Head to head - 6 bowlers of averages from 148 to 216.
At 80% of 220 the higher ave bowlers won 78% of the time.
At 90% of 220 the higher ave bowlers won 72% of the time.
At 95% of 220 the higher ave bowlers won 58% of the time.
At 100% of 220 the higher ave bowlers won 46% of the time.

These results are after 124 games each. I did not do any more because the numbers were starting to run into each other.
The league also used 4 different patterns last year ranging from easy to hard.

Rob

PS heres a hug for Big Paulie :console:

 

[JWhitty]

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

I'll pay that, my bad!

So to contribute, I always found as a higher average bowler that I would win more easily if
1. they kept the handicapping threshold down. Being a 215 in a league based off 200 (since the next highest was a 185 maybe) was definitely to my advantage, they all had to bowl 20 over average to beat me. Easier for me, but not fairer. and
2. they made the % lower. I think the argument for how this advantages the higer average is already well made.

Conversely it was harder to win games when the threshold was moved up and the percentage as well (90% of 220, flamin' 170 average bowlers would have a good night, I'd wrap a cold 8 pin, all over...).

I have always argued as Big Paulie has, if you're not going to bowl average it is more likely that the low average bowler will jag an extra strike or two and bowl higher. Leaving a half a dozen tenpins in the game probably doesn't really hurt them. Off 220 though, you can't afford much bad luck. I watched one of my Rachuig guys one night get up on the approach in Tuggeranong and slam a 7-10 off a good shot (obviously not a great shot). Then he got up on the other lane and repeated it perfectly for another 7-10. I don't know what it was about his angle that wasn't right, but anyone watching would've told you it was harsh. He now has to almost punch out to shoot that 220.

With all of that said, I think the higher handicapping systems keeps that higher average bowler honest. On lower systems, you can bowl 10 under and still beat that 150 who bowls 10 over. If you're good enough to average 220, I'm happy to punish you for being lazy, screwing up, or missing that spare. If they are genuinely a 150 average and they jag a 200, frankly they deserve to win don't you think? They have just pulled out fifty pins over their ability. To take the example to the extreme, I reckon 220av bowler will want to win when he bowls 300 against a 230 average that bowls 298, right?

If you want to be rewarded for your ability to knock down pins, bowl in a scratch league.
If you want to compete against your ability to bowl average against an opponents ability to bowl average, bowl in a handicap league.

If you want to bowl in the big money leagues, guess who's putting up the money? The 98% of league bowlers who don't average over 200 (obviously this excludes Mentone, Strikezone, and Aspley ). They want to be in there with a chance to win, not just donate money to the higher average bowlers.

Sorry to ramble so long, I have two irrelevant posts in this thread I'm making up for

 

[JWhitty]

I was just thinking about other sports, what's the argument in golf? The same applies, all it takes is that 20hcp player to jag an eagle and then hold his own the rest of the course, and then the low handicaps need to find a better performance by pulling out an extra birdie somewhere. I don't play golf, am I talking nonesense? In comparison the 150 finds a double, the 220 needs to match that by finding two doubles.

 

[Casual Observer]

This thread seems to be about the majority, not the infrequent games where someone shoots 50+ over average. I know it seems to happen a lot but look at the number of games bowled and work it out as a percentage. Mine would be low and I am inconsistent at the best of times.

And golf itself makes no sense so don't take it personally

As for scratch vs handicap, the handicap needs to be fair or it isn't a handicap at all, it is an advantage. At anything other than 100% the system is not fair.

 

[Casual Observer]

Rob, I apologise for talking sense.

 

[CHIN]

turn the sprinklers on in the ceiling & you can use the duckwoth/lewis system.

 

[Michael Little]

turn the sprinklers on in the ceiling & you can use the duckwoth/lewis system.

Divided by the number of spanners in a Sydchrome tool kit

 

[CHIN]

looks like there a few spanners in the aussie cricket team tonight

 

[Michael Little]

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.

This is all dependant on what X is, anything under the higher skilled bowlers average will most likely be in favour of the higher average bowler. As I said before, I bowled a 100% of 200 league a few years ago. Much better for me, if I was playing a 180 avg bowler and mine was around 230 and we both just bowled average, I win easily. The only way this evens up a bit is to increase X to be around or above the highest average of the league.

Anything below 100% down to the often quoted 80% will generally favour the high average bowler if only by a few pins. As a few have stated, the lower average bowler is capable of jagging the odd high game, however this has become even more regular than in previous years, due to strike in a box balls and easy league conditions, allows the lower average bowler to have a longer run of higher games on a night or for a few weeks at a time.

 

[Scuzz]

Ive always considered whether aspiring bowlers or possibly the average conventional drilled social league bowler, will try harder when bowling against someone considerably more skilled. Archery is the only thing i can relate it too. But ive found shooting on groups, when a few people seem to be shooting well, the rest seem to pick their game up some what. I guess team events in bowling could be similiar, feeding off each others positive energy/feetback. Maybe its adrenaline, not entirely sure.

However its always hard to argue with statistics.

 

[Casual Observer]

It isn't statistics, it is outright facts. Get rid of the assumptions.

It is a fact that if 2 bowlers are bowling a handicap league and one is off a higher average than the other then a system based on anything other than 100% of a number higher than the highest average is unfair. The bowlers are not starting on an equal basis and will have different scores if they both bowl average.

A proper handicap system is not supposed to allow this.

I attached a file showing the score a bowler would get if they bowled average and used a number of different average systems. The ONLY one that is fair is based on 100%.

 

[Andrew S.]

All the Bowlers posting in this thread have a far better understanding of handicap systems than the average League Bowler.

I find it a little ironic that the vast majority of League Bowlers neither understand nor care about the handicap system under which they bowl.
I’ve attend a great many reformation meetings and whenever I see a handicap system that seriously disadvantages the lower average bowlers I try to explain why the league should consider a change.

25% of the time I succeed, but in the main I find that Leagues are unwilling to alter their present handicap system.
I don’t know why this is – certainly lack of understanding, maybe suspicion, maybe fear of change, and probably a little bit of apathy.

I do know that a great many low and middle average bowlers are seriously disadvantaged and will continue to be so as long as they are unwilling to take more interest in the running of their leagues.
And without wishing to hijack the thread my last comment applies to a lot more than handicap systems.

 

[phaggy]

I, personally, love a challenge. So when it came to reforming our league on a Thursday Night, I asked if anyone would be averse to changing it to 110% of 220, which definately gives the handicap bowlers an advantage. We had been using it on Wednesday Nights for the past god knows how long and have found it to be a good challenge at times as if you are a 210+ avg bowler it may be a little harder to win your handicap points.

Both of these leagues are 4 man teams with a scratch and handicap point system. The last 3 yrs, the team with the highest scratch average at the end of the yr was still victorious, because they are able to make the more pressure shots and fend off the lower avg bowlers most of the time. Of course you have some off nights but most of the time the highest avg team is still going to win 15-20 points out of 40 each week based on their scratch scores alone. We added this to entice the handicap bowlers in to the league a little more and have found it to be a positive change with the league on Thursday Night growing from 9 teams to 14 within a couple of months.

I would like to see how it would go if it was a straight handicap system instead of both scratch and handicap, to see how the higher avg bowlers try and compete with having to catch an extra pin per every 10 pins higher that they are.

 

[Peter Coburn]

The following is an example I did for a state that wished to use the same scores for both the 2012 Holt and ATBSO Trails:

Holt Challenge Trials (100% of 200)
Bowler A has an entering average of 179 and therefore has a 21 handicap.
Bowler B has an entering average of 120 and therefore has an 80 handicap.

Bowler A bowls a 178 average over the 14 games and has a handicap series of 2786 ((178+21) x 14).
Bowler B bowls a 122 average over the 14 games and has a handicap series of 2828 ((122+80) x 14).

Bowler B makes the team.

These same bowlers use their scores for the ATBSO trials as follows –

ATBSO Challenge Trials (90% of 200)
Bowler A has an entering average of 179 and therefore has an 18 handicap.
Bowler B has an entering average of 120 and therefore has a 72 handicap.

Bowler A bowls a 178 average over the 14 games and has a handicap series of 2744 ((178+18) x 14).
Bowler B bowls a 122 average over the 14 games and has a handicap series of 2716 ((122+72) x 14).


This is an example as to why a 90% of 200 handicap system is weighted towards the higher average bowler. In the ATBSO example Bowler A makes the team even though Bowler B bowled 2 pins over his/her average and Bowler A did not bowl over his/her entering average. Effectviely for Bowler B to make the team then he/she must bowl 5 pins over average to beat a bowler who competed under average. Is this fair?

 

[Casual Observer]

Thanks Peter. That is a good example of what we have been saying.

Anything other than 100% is unfair to the lower average bowler.