win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: New league designation to bridge gap between Standard, Sport - USBC Article  (Read 9317 times)

xrayjay

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
Does a round object have sides? I say yes, pizza has triangles..

aka addik since 2003

 

milorafferty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11152
  • I have a name, therefore no preferred pronouns.

No worries Gene, I didn't take offense. I actually bowl a PBA league year round and drive 45 miles each way to do it.  ;D


I honestly think USBC has realized that a large group of bowlers don't bother with the Open because they know they have no chance. That is probably the reason for this years changes(adding another division, no prior knowledge of the pattern, etc). It at least gives them some glimmer of hope to compete.


I don't want to be a negative nellie, just realistic about how fickle league bowlers are.

I don't necessarily agree with people abandoning the Open, Milo. Most bowlers know that they have little to no chance of truly competing; they go mostly as a vacation and to say that they bowled. Now, you're certainly right about some people wanting to jump ship, but that happens as it is.

As for people not wanting to bowl on tougher patterns, that's where the tiered idea comes in. If they want wide open house shots, let them have them, but then they have to accept the consequence of bowling up at the Open Championships if they choose to go. It's the same thing when house hacks bowl PBA stops when they're local. They know that they probably don't have any shot of competing, but they do it because they want to be able to say that they did.

Long story short, there is no magical solution that will please everyone and stop the cheaters. If there were, someone would've come up with it by now. As such, I'm just tossing out concepts. I, by no means, expect them to be adopted and taken as gospel. I just figure making suggestions is better than either bitching and doing nothing to help or throwing my hands up and accepting how things are now (to be clear, those statements aren't directed at you, Milo, just the general whiny bowlers that we all know and hear from day in and day out.).
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

"If you don't stand for our flag, then don't expect me to give a damn about your feelings."

Gene J Kanak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005

No worries Gene, I didn't take offense. I actually bowl a PBA league year round and drive 45 miles each way to do it.  ;D


I honestly think USBC has realized that a large group of bowlers don't bother with the Open because they know they have no chance. That is probably the reason for this years changes(adding another division, no prior knowledge of the pattern, etc). It at least gives them some glimmer of hope to compete.


I don't want to be a negative nellie, just realistic about how fickle league bowlers are.

I don't necessarily agree with people abandoning the Open, Milo. Most bowlers know that they have little to no chance of truly competing; they go mostly as a vacation and to say that they bowled. Now, you're certainly right about some people wanting to jump ship, but that happens as it is.

As for people not wanting to bowl on tougher patterns, that's where the tiered idea comes in. If they want wide open house shots, let them have them, but then they have to accept the consequence of bowling up at the Open Championships if they choose to go. It's the same thing when house hacks bowl PBA stops when they're local. They know that they probably don't have any shot of competing, but they do it because they want to be able to say that they did.

Long story short, there is no magical solution that will please everyone and stop the cheaters. If there were, someone would've come up with it by now. As such, I'm just tossing out concepts. I, by no means, expect them to be adopted and taken as gospel. I just figure making suggestions is better than either bitching and doing nothing to help or throwing my hands up and accepting how things are now (to be clear, those statements aren't directed at you, Milo, just the general whiny bowlers that we all know and hear from day in and day out.).

That's probably my biggest beef with some people. USBC is far from perfect and has made some mistakes. However, I wish more bowlers would take some level of accountability. If we want tougher patterns, we can either demand that from the proprietor, or we can take our business elsewhere to a house that offers them. If we don't like high powered bowling balls, we can still use urethane, plastic, and even rubber if you pilfer some house ball racks. In the end, there is just so much hypocrisy among bowlers. A lot of us talk big, but when push comes to shove, we don't really follow through. That's why I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that the membership decline has to do with scoring. Most bowlers, whether they admit it or not, like shooting big numbers even if they know the conditions they shot them on are a joke.

Olderdude

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Because your average league bowler does not want to bowl on Challenge, Sport or any other condition other than their THS. Why is that so hard for all you folks to understand?
They are in the league for fun and do not consider a harder shot than their THS fun.

Yes, the Open is scratch, but that isn't how they are going to see it. Your under 210 bowlers will refuse(or do not have access to a challenge/sport league) to spend their money when they know they have zero chance. And what happens to the Classified group? It will cease to exist immediately.

+1 You totally beat me with your response. Majority of bowlers dont want tougher conditions so if you eliminate THS averages for US Open for example you are killing the classified division.
I understand they are there for fun.  I get it.  No one is saying take away their fun.  They can bowl on the easiest condition and drink and have a blast.  Nothing wrong with that. My idea just promotes bowling as a sport (Not necessarily a "sport league"). 

 

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7680
I totally get the "Standard" and "Sport" designations. They fit the designations of what most bowlers participate on.
 
I don't quite get the "Challenge" designation. I bowl THS in one house where the lane beds are worn out, the conditions are spotty at best, the air conditioning is broken, and the environment is otherwise in a state of disrepair. I average probably 15 pins less there than my primary THS house (which is pristine in every respect). Even though I would designate this dump "Challenge", I have no doubt that Management would slap a "Standard" designation for USBC purposes. 
 
This is just one example of the problems with defining "Challenge". I get what the USBC is trying to accomplish and applaud their efforts, but definitions leave a lot to be desired.

ITZPS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
Yes, applying data and science to something COULD make it more accurate theoretically.  I used to work in concrete research for our state DOT and 100% of the data generated and received and input went through me in one way or another.  There's a little thing though called standard deviation, and some of our testing allowed for as high as 50% deviance due to either number of uncontrollable variables, a significant variance due to heavy human influence either because there was a large reliance on human judgment or accuracy, or because the sample was touched by an undesirable amount of people, etc. 

So yes, the data can be crunched, yes more data could make it more accurate, but the standard deviation due to the amount of variables is astronomical.  If we had a test that we could possibly lower the deviation on, sure, we'd look into it, but impact always took precedence over process especially when considering desired deviation.  If the desired standard deviation was 10%, and it's currently at 40% and you spend a lot of extra time and effort to get it down to 35%, there's no point until the process has been refined to a point where it represents a significant advance, and not everything is an advance.  Any change or adjustment always adds deviation of its own, and while you could possibly lower the standard deviation of one process or component, the associated raise in getting that accomplished might offset it or even raise the total deviation. 

In this situation, the amount of variables are so high and the conditions would change so often that the small amount of progress they're going to make effectively results in a ton of extra work for very small and likely unpredictable gain, IF there actually IS gain.  Scores are affected by so many things and so many people are so severely affected by so many different things that trying to create science or a broad brush on individual performance based on the performance of a group is going to cause more problems than it's going to solve.  You cannot predict what is going to affect an individual result and what is going to change for them based on the average of a league or center because there isn't enough data let alone enough relevant data.  There are people that bowl here that have 10-15 pin differences in their average between leagues at night or day or number of bowlers in the league and what end of the house they bowl on, etc.  The sheer amount of data you would have to have to even realistically consider using or implementing the results is staggering and without a relevant amount, you're simply moving the bar, not advancing it. 


Gee, sounds like you are describing how the CURRENT system works.


And yes, applying data science principals would create a much more accurate profile of a bowlers true skill.


Just because you don't understand how it works, or how to do something, doesn't mean it's not valid. It is ludicrous to think otherwise.

Yes, the numbers could technically be done, but the concept behind it is ludicrous.  Some people excel on wetter conditions or on drier conditions.  What happens when your average doesn't fit the trend of the house you bowl in and you get to go to another house that both fits your game AND you get extra pins to boot?  Some people could be opposite, you could bowl well at a house other people don't, go to a different house where you both get penalized AND don't match up.  It's completely subjective, just because the numbers could technically be crunched doesn't mean the idea itself is viable in the least. 

Storm Amateur Staff
Turbo Regional Staff

ITZPS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
YES YES YES.


No worries Gene, I didn't take offense. I actually bowl a PBA league year round and drive 45 miles each way to do it.  ;D


I honestly think USBC has realized that a large group of bowlers don't bother with the Open because they know they have no chance. That is probably the reason for this years changes(adding another division, no prior knowledge of the pattern, etc). It at least gives them some glimmer of hope to compete.


I don't want to be a negative nellie, just realistic about how fickle league bowlers are.

I don't necessarily agree with people abandoning the Open, Milo. Most bowlers know that they have little to no chance of truly competing; they go mostly as a vacation and to say that they bowled. Now, you're certainly right about some people wanting to jump ship, but that happens as it is.

As for people not wanting to bowl on tougher patterns, that's where the tiered idea comes in. If they want wide open house shots, let them have them, but then they have to accept the consequence of bowling up at the Open Championships if they choose to go. It's the same thing when house hacks bowl PBA stops when they're local. They know that they probably don't have any shot of competing, but they do it because they want to be able to say that they did.

Long story short, there is no magical solution that will please everyone and stop the cheaters. If there were, someone would've come up with it by now. As such, I'm just tossing out concepts. I, by no means, expect them to be adopted and taken as gospel. I just figure making suggestions is better than either bitching and doing nothing to help or throwing my hands up and accepting how things are now (to be clear, those statements aren't directed at you, Milo, just the general whiny bowlers that we all know and hear from day in and day out.).

That's probably my biggest beef with some people. USBC is far from perfect and has made some mistakes. However, I wish more bowlers would take some level of accountability. If we want tougher patterns, we can either demand that from the proprietor, or we can take our business elsewhere to a house that offers them. If we don't like high powered bowling balls, we can still use urethane, plastic, and even rubber if you pilfer some house ball racks. In the end, there is just so much hypocrisy among bowlers. A lot of us talk big, but when push comes to shove, we don't really follow through. That's why I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that the membership decline has to do with scoring. Most bowlers, whether they admit it or not, like shooting big numbers even if they know the conditions they shot them on are a joke.
Storm Amateur Staff
Turbo Regional Staff

milorafferty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11152
  • I have a name, therefore no preferred pronouns.
Two completely different things. The problem of ranking bowlers against their peers is not as complex as you are trying to make it.

I do this type of work every day for a living. It's my education and career for the past 20+ years.

Yes, applying data and science to something COULD make it more accurate theoretically.  I used to work in concrete research for our state DOT and 100% of the data generated and received and input went through me in one way or another.  There's a little thing though called standard deviation, and some of our testing allowed for as high as 50% deviance due to either number of uncontrollable variables, a significant variance due to heavy human influence either because there was a large reliance on human judgment or accuracy, or because the sample was touched by an undesirable amount of people, etc. 

So yes, the data can be crunched, yes more data could make it more accurate, but the standard deviation due to the amount of variables is astronomical.  If we had a test that we could possibly lower the deviation on, sure, we'd look into it, but impact always took precedence over process especially when considering desired deviation.  If the desired standard deviation was 10%, and it's currently at 40% and you spend a lot of extra time and effort to get it down to 35%, there's no point until the process has been refined to a point where it represents a significant advance, and not everything is an advance.  Any change or adjustment always adds deviation of its own, and while you could possibly lower the standard deviation of one process or component, the associated raise in getting that accomplished might offset it or even raise the total deviation. 

In this situation, the amount of variables are so high and the conditions would change so often that the small amount of progress they're going to make effectively results in a ton of extra work for very small and likely unpredictable gain, IF there actually IS gain.  Scores are affected by so many things and so many people are so severely affected by so many different things that trying to create science or a broad brush on individual performance based on the performance of a group is going to cause more problems than it's going to solve.  You cannot predict what is going to affect an individual result and what is going to change for them based on the average of a league or center because there isn't enough data let alone enough relevant data.  There are people that bowl here that have 10-15 pin differences in their average between leagues at night or day or number of bowlers in the league and what end of the house they bowl on, etc.  The sheer amount of data you would have to have to even realistically consider using or implementing the results is staggering and without a relevant amount, you're simply moving the bar, not advancing it. 


Gee, sounds like you are describing how the CURRENT system works.


And yes, applying data science principals would create a much more accurate profile of a bowlers true skill.


Just because you don't understand how it works, or how to do something, doesn't mean it's not valid. It is ludicrous to think otherwise.

Yes, the numbers could technically be done, but the concept behind it is ludicrous.  Some people excel on wetter conditions or on drier conditions.  What happens when your average doesn't fit the trend of the house you bowl in and you get to go to another house that both fits your game AND you get extra pins to boot?  Some people could be opposite, you could bowl well at a house other people don't, go to a different house where you both get penalized AND don't match up.  It's completely subjective, just because the numbers could technically be crunched doesn't mean the idea itself is viable in the least. 

"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

"If you don't stand for our flag, then don't expect me to give a damn about your feelings."

ITZPS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
Then I defer to your expertise.  But ranking bowlers against their peers is different from adjusting handicap based on center ratings, and center ratings I feel WOULD be that complex.  Perhaps explain what you're thinking so I can understand?  I can't conceive of a way for someone to tell me how I'm going to bowl at a given center well enough that they can fairly handicap me.  On a golf course?  Sure, I can see that happening.  Bowling?  Not in the slightest, just can't see it.

Two completely different things. The problem of ranking bowlers against their peers is not as complex as you are trying to make it.

I do this type of work every day for a living. It's my education and career for the past 20+ years.

Yes, applying data and science to something COULD make it more accurate theoretically.  I used to work in concrete research for our state DOT and 100% of the data generated and received and input went through me in one way or another.  There's a little thing though called standard deviation, and some of our testing allowed for as high as 50% deviance due to either number of uncontrollable variables, a significant variance due to heavy human influence either because there was a large reliance on human judgment or accuracy, or because the sample was touched by an undesirable amount of people, etc. 

So yes, the data can be crunched, yes more data could make it more accurate, but the standard deviation due to the amount of variables is astronomical.  If we had a test that we could possibly lower the deviation on, sure, we'd look into it, but impact always took precedence over process especially when considering desired deviation.  If the desired standard deviation was 10%, and it's currently at 40% and you spend a lot of extra time and effort to get it down to 35%, there's no point until the process has been refined to a point where it represents a significant advance, and not everything is an advance.  Any change or adjustment always adds deviation of its own, and while you could possibly lower the standard deviation of one process or component, the associated raise in getting that accomplished might offset it or even raise the total deviation. 

In this situation, the amount of variables are so high and the conditions would change so often that the small amount of progress they're going to make effectively results in a ton of extra work for very small and likely unpredictable gain, IF there actually IS gain.  Scores are affected by so many things and so many people are so severely affected by so many different things that trying to create science or a broad brush on individual performance based on the performance of a group is going to cause more problems than it's going to solve.  You cannot predict what is going to affect an individual result and what is going to change for them based on the average of a league or center because there isn't enough data let alone enough relevant data.  There are people that bowl here that have 10-15 pin differences in their average between leagues at night or day or number of bowlers in the league and what end of the house they bowl on, etc.  The sheer amount of data you would have to have to even realistically consider using or implementing the results is staggering and without a relevant amount, you're simply moving the bar, not advancing it. 


Gee, sounds like you are describing how the CURRENT system works.


And yes, applying data science principals would create a much more accurate profile of a bowlers true skill.


Just because you don't understand how it works, or how to do something, doesn't mean it's not valid. It is ludicrous to think otherwise.

Yes, the numbers could technically be done, but the concept behind it is ludicrous.  Some people excel on wetter conditions or on drier conditions.  What happens when your average doesn't fit the trend of the house you bowl in and you get to go to another house that both fits your game AND you get extra pins to boot?  Some people could be opposite, you could bowl well at a house other people don't, go to a different house where you both get penalized AND don't match up.  It's completely subjective, just because the numbers could technically be crunched doesn't mean the idea itself is viable in the least. 

Storm Amateur Staff
Turbo Regional Staff

milorafferty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11152
  • I have a name, therefore no preferred pronouns.
I'm not talking about handicapping a center. My thoughts are to rate bowlers against their peers by percentile. Then you could apply that ranking against whatever the handicap basis might be. The top bowlers generally filter to the top, no matter the conditions. The actual averages are irrelevant, it's how they performed against the field, not against the max score of 300.


For instance, a league with 100 bowlers, the top bowler in the league would be in the top 1%. There is one data point. If the bowler is in more than one league, you have more data points. The bowler's combined league average in relation to the entire house league average, another data point. Same bowler goes to a USBC sanctioned tournament, compare how the bowler does against the field, another data point. The bowler then goes to the USBC Open, compare his results against the tournament field, another data point. Once the bowler gets a number of data points, we can "throw-out" the anomalies of extreme highs and lows. The average of the remaining data points becomes their ranking %.

Each time you add a data point, the system becomes more accurate. Within a couple of years, you have a valid, accurate and easy to apply system for handicap. USBC could run this system side by side with the current one for say, two years, and then put it in place.

Handicap would be figured as follows: Using the standard 90% of 220 a 1% bowler would get zero pins. 90% of 220 = 198 * (bowler rank -1)% would be the number of sticks given.
A basic chart would look like this:
1% = 0
2% = 2 (round up)
3% = 4
4% = 6
5% = 8
...
20% = 38
...
50% = 97
etc.


We might need to adjust the reduction factor, and this will not stop the true shit-bags like Swindle from the other post, but at least it will take the house and lane pattern variances out of the equation.


Then I defer to your expertise.  But ranking bowlers against their peers is different from adjusting handicap based on center ratings, and center ratings I feel WOULD be that complex.  Perhaps explain what you're thinking so I can understand?  I can't conceive of a way for someone to tell me how I'm going to bowl at a given center well enough that they can fairly handicap me.  On a golf course?  Sure, I can see that happening.  Bowling?  Not in the slightest, just can't see it.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2017, 03:56:31 PM by milorafferty »
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

"If you don't stand for our flag, then don't expect me to give a damn about your feelings."

ITZPS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
I'm on board, I like that. 

I'm not talking about handicapping a center. My thoughts are to rate bowlers against their peers by percentile. Then you could apply that ranking against whatever the handicap basis might be. The top bowlers generally filter to the top, no matter the conditions. The actual averages are irrelevant, it's how they performed against the field, not against the max score of 300.


For instance, a league with 100 bowlers, the top bowler in the league would be in the top 1%. There is one data point. If the bowler is in more than one league, you have more data points. The bowler's combined league average in relation to the entire house league average, another data point. Same bowler goes to a USBC sanctioned tournament, compare how the bowler does against the field, another data point. The bowler then goes to the USBC Open, compare his results against the tournament field, another data point. Once the bowler gets a number of data points, we can "throw-out" the anomalies of extreme highs and lows. The average of the remaining data points becomes their ranking %.

Each time you add a data point, the system becomes more accurate. Within a couple of years, you have a valid, accurate and easy to apply system for handicap. USBC could run this system side by side with the current one for say, two years, and then put it in place.

Handicap would be figured as follows: Using the standard 90% of 220 a 1% bowler would get zero pins. 90% of 220 = 198 * (bowler rank -1)% would be the number of sticks given.
A basic chart would look like this:
1% = 0
2% = 2 (round up)
3% = 4
4% = 6
5% = 8
...
20% = 38
...
50% = 97
etc.


We might need to adjust the reduction factor, and this will not stop the true shit-bags like Swindle from the other post, but at least it will take the house and lane pattern variances out of the equation.


Then I defer to your expertise.  But ranking bowlers against their peers is different from adjusting handicap based on center ratings, and center ratings I feel WOULD be that complex.  Perhaps explain what you're thinking so I can understand?  I can't conceive of a way for someone to tell me how I'm going to bowl at a given center well enough that they can fairly handicap me.  On a golf course?  Sure, I can see that happening.  Bowling?  Not in the slightest, just can't see it.

Storm Amateur Staff
Turbo Regional Staff

Gene J Kanak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
I really like your concept, Milo.

itsallaboutme

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2001
Take the money out of the situation and a lot less people will cheat.   

ITZPS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
Also true.  There was a league in town that was complaining a lot about the sanction fee "for nothing," and how expensive it all was, and we suggested to them that maybe they just not have a prize fund, just pay their lineage, it would be cheaper and they'd be able to have more fun.  They thought we were trying to steal their money and two teams quit over the simple suggestion.  Never understood why leagues have prize funds in the first place, but yeah, people will complain that they just want to have fun, but yet handicap and prize fund discussions are always the worst part of any league meeting. 

Take the money out of the situation and a lot less people will cheat.
Storm Amateur Staff
Turbo Regional Staff

Gene J Kanak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
Money also plays into people's whining about lane conditions. Whenever someone bitches that USBC ruined the sport by not banning high-powered balls, I suggest that the individual drill up and use urethane or plastic in order to make the game more challenging. The response I usually get is that then they can't compete. Well, what is your priority, making the game challenging or keeping up with Johnny House Hack and his 235 average?

leftybowler70

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1710
Money also plays into people's whining about lane conditions. Whenever someone bitches that USBC ruined the sport by not banning high-powered balls, I suggest that the individual drill up and use urethane or plastic in order to make the game more challenging. The response I usually get is that then they can't compete. Well, what is your priority, making the game challenging or keeping up with Johnny House Hack and his 235 average?


Yes yes yes exactly.