BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: xrayjay on April 25, 2017, 01:19:08 PM
-
interesting....
http://www.bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622329086
-
And the baggers wept.
-
This will be dependent on bowling centers to enforce?
-
Ok great. Doesn't change much unless more centers actually offer leagues with those designations
-
Now they need a designation for houses with shitty carry, poor maintenance procedures (e.g. cleaning the pin decks so pins don't slide), and dead pins.
All of these factors impact the scoring environment.
-
I agree that this step certainly won't eliminate the problem, but at least it shows that USBC recognizes the problem and is willing to try some things to curb it.
-
The USBC has all the information they need to make handicap accurate right in their databases.
The fact is, good bowlers will have higher averages than not so good bowlers. Get rid of using averages and rank bowlers among their peers. This will take house/lane/pattern variances out of the equation.
-
I agree that this step certainly won't eliminate the problem, but at least it shows that USBC recognizes the problem and is willing to try some things to curb it.
I agree, at least try something.
Funny thing is, I'm not sure why we convert averages up from sport to THS and the we go bowl sport at nationals and have to use a THS averages. Oh well
-
Just my honest opinion. I see the USBC putting together a database of averages in all centers and rerating bowlers in their particular center based on the data. The reason I say this is a lot of big dollar handicap tournaments have people averaging 185-190 that bowl in centers that have piss poor topography and low volume of oil and go to a tournament that has an easy shot and shoot 660+ with a lot of handicap. Also you have the typical baggers too.
-
Just my honest opinion. I see the USBC putting together a database of averages in all centers and rerating bowlers in their particular center based on the data. The reason I say this is a lot of big dollar handicap tournaments have people averaging 185-190 that bowl in centers that have piss poor topography and low volume of oil and go to a tournament that has an easy shot and shoot 660+ with a lot of handicap. Also you have the typical baggers too.
I've had people 180 and under score higher than me at nationals. lol
-
Impossible to accurately implement and completely subjective. Too much gray area.
Just my honest opinion. I see the USBC putting together a database of averages in all centers and rerating bowlers in their particular center based on the data. The reason I say this is a lot of big dollar handicap tournaments have people averaging 185-190 that bowl in centers that have piss poor topography and low volume of oil and go to a tournament that has an easy shot and shoot 660+ with a lot of handicap. Also you have the typical baggers too.
-
Impossible to accurately implement and completely subjective. Too much gray area.
Just my honest opinion. I see the USBC putting together a database of averages in all centers and rerating bowlers in their particular center based on the data. The reason I say this is a lot of big dollar handicap tournaments have people averaging 185-190 that bowl in centers that have piss poor topography and low volume of oil and go to a tournament that has an easy shot and shoot 660+ with a lot of handicap. Also you have the typical baggers too.
You're 100% on that one. Riggs actually talked about that too. Would cost $$$ to get the test/results and owners wont want that expense
-
The problem with this is it is completely voluntary upon the league to report. In theory, I could put out a 1:1 shot everyday for leagues and open play and it would be my THS. I don't have to report it as a sport condition since it meets the USBC limit of 3 units of oil. My bowlers would clean house in tournaments.
At the same time, the league could report as a Challenge league and put out the easiest of shots for 35 of 36 weeks; ultimately leading to everyone in the league with an inflated average based on some scale. I am wondering if there will be a minimum or maximum number of weeks where more difficult shots are used. And what will be the definition of difficult.
There is no way to keep this consistent and fair. It seems like a way for USBC to be able to rerate bowlers when they see fit if an average for a league is lower than what that bowler had in the past. You will see bowlers being rerated at Nationals based on USBC stating their league should have been a Challenge league.
-
Bowlers in each area/region know. Rank from top to bottom...Supplement with house averages, comparisons of bowlers that have leagues in different houses, etc. The data is probably mostly there. Just need someone to Wade through it and make sense of it.
-
Unfortunately just too much work and too hard to enforce for what it's worth. I don't disagree with the majority of stuff that's been suggested on this thread or the other one, it's all theoretically great, but realistically not an option.
Bowlers in each area/region know. Rank from top to bottom...Supplement with house averages, comparisons of bowlers that have leagues in different houses, etc. The data is probably mostly there. Just need someone to Wade through it and make sense of it.
-
No, it isn't. Any decent database admin/developer could write the routine to make it happen.
Impossible to accurately implement and completely subjective. Too much gray area.
Just my honest opinion. I see the USBC putting together a database of averages in all centers and rerating bowlers in their particular center based on the data. The reason I say this is a lot of big dollar handicap tournaments have people averaging 185-190 that bowl in centers that have piss poor topography and low volume of oil and go to a tournament that has an easy shot and shoot 660+ with a lot of handicap. Also you have the typical baggers too.
-
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.
No, it isn't. Any decent database admin/developer could write the routine to make it happen.
Impossible to accurately implement and completely subjective. Too much gray area.
Just my honest opinion. I see the USBC putting together a database of averages in all centers and rerating bowlers in their particular center based on the data. The reason I say this is a lot of big dollar handicap tournaments have people averaging 185-190 that bowl in centers that have piss poor topography and low volume of oil and go to a tournament that has an easy shot and shoot 660+ with a lot of handicap. Also you have the typical baggers too.
-
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.
-
This will be dependent on bowling centers to enforce?
The article says the league secretary is the one who chooses the league designation. What happens after that is anyone's guess.
I believe the article does not mention enforcement at all.
So far 90% of this thread discusses the same old differences between plain league and sport league. It's almost impossible to monitor AND CORRECT all the potential injustices that can happen accidentally and will happen on purpose. The USBC has already stated that sandbagging cannot be proven without knowing the intention of the bowler - this requires 30th century mind reading technology. ;) So sandbagging will continue to happen, both intentionally and accidentally, no matter where the bowler's average is established and no matter how the league is labeled. 175 average bowlers will continue to throws 700s in tournaments and continue to beat the 230 average bowlers.
Make no mistake:
1. "Challenge" league is just a label.
2. Without some true, reliable method to regulate and enforce all the implications of a challenge or sport league, all "if"s, "and"s or "but"s are strictly moot.
-
Excellent analysis Jeff. Which is why we need a system that rates bowlers against their peers, not by average. Take the house limitations and oil patterns out of the equation.
This will be dependent on bowling centers to enforce?
The article says the league secretary is the one who chooses the league designation. What happens after that is anyone's guess.
I believe the article does not mention enforcement at all.
So far 90% of this thread discusses the same old differences between plain league and sport league. It's almost impossible to monitor AND CORRECT all the potential injustices that can happen accidentally and will happen on purpose. The USBC has already stated that sandbagging cannot be proven without knowing the intention of the bowler - this requires 30th century mind reading technology. ;) So sandbagging will continue to happen, both intentionally and accidentally, no matter where the bowler's average is established and no matter how the league is labeled. 175 average bowlers will continue to throws 700s in tournaments and continue to beat the 230 average bowlers.
Make no mistake:
1. "Challenge" league is just a label.
2. Without some true, reliable method to regulate and enforce all the implications of a challenge or sport league, all "if"s, "and"s or "but"s are strictly moot.
-
When I was at USBC, I suggested going one of two directions, either mandating that all certified leagues be bowled on Sport-compliant patterns, or tiering leagues. For example, an oil ratio between 1:1 and 3:1 would be Sport and offer the highest awards package (when USBC still handled awards). Ratios between 4:1 and 7:1 equals Challenge and would have fewer awards and recognition, and anything above 7:1 equals Recreational, which would mean no awards unless they wanted to print them off themselves. I also thought maybe it would be best to have all youth leagues conducted on Sport from Day 1. That way, all kids would ever know are tough patterns, which might make them more willing to accept them as they get older. Sadly, none of those ideas were taken very seriously.
At this point. my suggestion would be to let USBC create a roster full of patterns or to use PBA, WTBA, and Kegel patterns. Mandate that all certified leagues use (one or a combination) those patterns, make them report which ones are being used, and make them take tapes every so often. They wouldn't have to do it every week like they wanted with Sport, but just once in a while. Also, maybe try to mandate that the local association conduct a certain number of random checks throughout each season just to try to limit cheating.
From the USBC side, if a certain bowler or center appears to be showing anomalies when it comes to scoring (either significantly above or below the national average for the pattern in question), they can conduct an inquiry and/or flag all of the bowlers who established averages in that center so that, until it's determined that everything is on the up and up, they can't take advantage of the situation.
Now, obviously, this idea, just like all others, has clear flaws. First of all, the way those patterns play in different houses with different machines, conditioner, topography, etc. is going to vary greatly, but at least then we would, theoretically, know what everyone is bowling on. Hell, USBC and tournament directors could even tier the patterns. If your league bowls on the toughest ones, you get re-rated higher just like they want to do now. If your league uses the friendlier patterns, we'll know why your average may be inflated.
While I like leagues and centers having autonomy over what they want to put out, it's just too much of a free for fall, and that's part of the problem. While there are and always will be scumbags who bag on purpose to screw others over, I think there are lots of honest bowlers who come off as baggers just because their leagues decide they want more of a challenge than the THS has to offer. In the end, there is no way to make things 100% fair because their is no way to monitor centers closely enough to make sure they're in compliance. Still, at least we're having these discussions, and USBC is willing to try different things to make this better than it is right now. That's a start.
-
I mentioned in a different thread that kind of morphed into this subject a little.
I like what Gene mentioned about tiers: Sport, Challenge, Recreational. I have mentioned that the only average you can use for a USBC tournament is Sport or Challenge and the Recreational is just for that. If a league wants to bowl on that pattern knock yourself out, have fun. But if you want to bowl any USBC sanctioned tournament, you'll have to step up. This wont help sandbagging, but as everyone here has mentioned cheaters will cheat. At least this way everyone has a more restricted and level playing field.
-
So if someone wants to bowl the USBC Open, they have to have a Sport average or be rated as 220? That would be the end of the USBC Open.
I mentioned in a different thread that kind of morphed into this subject a little.
I like what Gene mentioned about tiers: Sport, Challenge, Recreational. I have mentioned that the only average you can use for a USBC tournament is Sport or Challenge and the Recreational is just for that. If a league wants to bowl on that pattern knock yourself out, have fun. But if you want to bowl any USBC sanctioned tournament, you'll have to step up. This wont help sandbagging, but as everyone here has mentioned cheaters will cheat. At least this way everyone has a more restricted and level playing field.
-
So if someone wants to bowl the USBC Open, they have to have a Sport average or be rated as 220? That would be the end of the USBC Open.
I mentioned in a different thread that kind of morphed into this subject a little.
I like what Gene mentioned about tiers: Sport, Challenge, Recreational. I have mentioned that the only average you can use for a USBC tournament is Sport or Challenge and the Recreational is just for that. If a league wants to bowl on that pattern knock yourself out, have fun. But if you want to bowl any USBC sanctioned tournament, you'll have to step up. This wont help sandbagging, but as everyone here has mentioned cheaters will cheat. At least this way everyone has a more restricted and level playing field.
Not necessarily sport could be challenge.
-
Still the same effect, it would be the end of the USBC Open.
So if someone wants to bowl the USBC Open, they have to have a Sport average or be rated as 220? That would be the end of the USBC Open.
I mentioned in a different thread that kind of morphed into this subject a little.
I like what Gene mentioned about tiers: Sport, Challenge, Recreational. I have mentioned that the only average you can use for a USBC tournament is Sport or Challenge and the Recreational is just for that. If a league wants to bowl on that pattern knock yourself out, have fun. But if you want to bowl any USBC sanctioned tournament, you'll have to step up. This wont help sandbagging, but as everyone here has mentioned cheaters will cheat. At least this way everyone has a more restricted and level playing field.
Not necessarily sport could be challenge.
-
Still the same effect, it would be the end of the USBC Open.
So if someone wants to bowl the USBC Open, they have to have a Sport average or be rated as 220? That would be the end of the USBC Open.
I mentioned in a different thread that kind of morphed into this subject a little.
I like what Gene mentioned about tiers: Sport, Challenge, Recreational. I have mentioned that the only average you can use for a USBC tournament is Sport or Challenge and the Recreational is just for that. If a league wants to bowl on that pattern knock yourself out, have fun. But if you want to bowl any USBC sanctioned tournament, you'll have to step up. This wont help sandbagging, but as everyone here has mentioned cheaters will cheat. At least this way everyone has a more restricted and level playing field.
Not necessarily sport could be challenge.
Don't see how, the USBC Open is scratch.
-
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.
Still the same effect, it would be the end of the USBC Open.
So if someone wants to bowl the USBC Open, they have to have a Sport average or be rated as 220? That would be the end of the USBC Open.
I mentioned in a different thread that kind of morphed into this subject a little.
I like what Gene mentioned about tiers: Sport, Challenge, Recreational. I have mentioned that the only average you can use for a USBC tournament is Sport or Challenge and the Recreational is just for that. If a league wants to bowl on that pattern knock yourself out, have fun. But if you want to bowl any USBC sanctioned tournament, you'll have to step up. This wont help sandbagging, but as everyone here has mentioned cheaters will cheat. At least this way everyone has a more restricted and level playing field.
Not necessarily sport could be challenge.
Don't see how, the USBC Open is scratch.
-
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 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.).
-
When I was at USBC, I suggested going one of two directions, either mandating that all certified leagues be bowled on Sport-compliant patterns, or tiering leagues. For example, an oil ratio between 1:1 and 3:1 would be Sport and offer the highest awards package (when USBC still handled awards). Ratios between 4:1 and 7:1 equals Challenge and would have fewer awards and recognition, and anything above 7:1 equals Recreational, which would mean no awards unless they wanted to print them off themselves. I also thought maybe it would be best to have all youth leagues conducted on Sport from Day 1. That way, all kids would ever know are tough patterns, which might make them more willing to accept them as they get older. Sadly, none of those ideas were taken very seriously.
At this point. my suggestion would be to let USBC create a roster full of patterns or to use PBA, WTBA, and Kegel patterns. Mandate that all certified leagues use (one or a combination) those patterns, make them report which ones are being used, and make them take tapes every so often. They wouldn't have to do it every week like they wanted with Sport, but just once in a while. Also, maybe try to mandate that the local association conduct a certain number of random checks throughout each season just to try to limit cheating.
From the USBC side, if a certain bowler or center appears to be showing anomalies when it comes to scoring (either significantly above or below the national average for the pattern in question), they can conduct an inquiry and/or flag all of the bowlers who established averages in that center so that, until it's determined that everything is on the up and up, they can't take advantage of the situation.
Now, obviously, this idea, just like all others, has clear flaws. First of all, the way those patterns play in different houses with different machines, conditioner, topography, etc. is going to vary greatly, but at least then we would, theoretically, know what everyone is bowling on. Hell, USBC and tournament directors could even tier the patterns. If your league bowls on the toughest ones, you get re-rated higher just like they want to do now. If your league uses the friendlier patterns, we'll know why your average may be inflated.
While I like leagues and centers having autonomy over what they want to put out, it's just too much of a free for fall, and that's part of the problem. While there are and always will be scumbags who bag on purpose to screw others over, I think there are lots of honest bowlers who come off as baggers just because their leagues decide they want more of a challenge than the THS has to offer. In the end, there is no way to make things 100% fair because their is no way to monitor centers closely enough to make sure they're in compliance. Still, at least we're having these discussions, and USBC is willing to try different things to make this better than it is right now. That's a start.
I agree 100% ^^
-
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.).
-
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.
-
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").
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I really like your concept, Milo.
-
Take the money out of the situation and a lot less people will cheat.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
There is room for both type of leagues as it is. I doubt the bowling center cares if the league pays out any money or not.
But tournaments without a cash prize? Please...
-
Actually, I would think that a lot of proprietors would be just fine with no prize money or pot money. I've actually heard a bowler rant and rave about the poor lane conditions keeping him from winning money that he needed to win because rent was coming do. I mean, proprietors just want full leagues; they really don't care what brings the bowlers to them.
As Milo says, tournaments are a different matter.
-
I've actually heard a bowler rant and rave about the poor lane conditions keeping him from winning money that he needed to win because rent was coming do.
There is a lot of good stuff in this quote. Not only does this bowler blame the conditions for keeping him from winning what he presumes is HIS money.......but counts on winnings for rent.
I'm going to venture out and say there are far greater issues at play for this cat.....
-
Really like milorafferty's idea of ranking and agree with others that for most leagues the need for prize funds is low (non elite leagues) and if explained to bowlers that they keep the weekly prize fund amount in their pockets most would be in favor. If there are bowlers who need a little action each week run game pots and/or raffles. And if you need prize money to pay your rent then you have bigger problems than lane conditions.
-
Really like milorafferty's idea of ranking and agree with others that for most leagues the need for prize funds is low (non elite leagues) and if explained to bowlers that they keep the weekly prize fund amount in their pockets most would be in favor. If there are bowlers who need a little action each week run game pots and/or raffles. And if you need prize money to pay your rent then you have bigger problems than lane conditions.
Thanks, I came up with it a few years ago when I finally realized that my 220 average was more of a product of WHERE I bowled, not HOW WELL I bowled.
I was bowling a tournament with other bowlers who were obviously better than me, but their averages were 20-25 pins lower. They all bowled in houses that wasn't quite so forgiving as my local "Great Wall of China" palace. One of them mentioned that my 220 would be the highest average at their home house by at least 10 pins. I laughed because I'm probably only in the top 15-20% at the Great Wall place with several guys in the 240's.
So, being a database geek, I went to work on the problem and came up with the ranking idea. I even wrote a White Paper on it and sent it to USBC. Of course, I got the standard form e-mail back thanking me for contacting them, pretty much the the equivalent of your aunt saying, "Well that's nice".
;D
-
And if you need prize money to pay your rent then you have bigger problems than lane conditions.
Very sad......
-
As more leagues felt the need to become money leagues, my enjoyment of league bowling decreased, largely due to all the hoops and politics involved in putting together teams each year. Don't get me wrong, I have benefited more than most anyone in making money from scratch tournaments over the years. However, I think big money in leagues has been bad for the organized league game.
-
Got a different problem where I live now: The only center in a 30-mile radius has two leagues with a grand total of about 20 people on each.
Of those 40 bowlers, there are only 25 or so "unique" bowlers (i.e., some are repeat customers, bowling both leagues). Of those 25, fully half are throwing plastic straight down the pike every night with zero revs.
Ergo, there's no way to compare me to them or them to me. There are 5, maybe 6 guys in there with a rev rate approaching 200 (I'm probably third-highest with a whopping 240).
We are part of a larger association (nearest house being 30+ miles away, however, and the next-nearest is 50-plus) but the other houses in the association all have enough bowlers so that proper sampling can be undertaken.
In our house, we have one guy averaging 200+, another in the 180s, and then there are 3-4 of us in the high 160s-170s, and I'm in that group. I've been in that group the last three years straight, ever since moving here.
Prior to that, I was a scratch bowler in another city. What happened? Well, I'm not getting any younger (nor is my right knee), but the big issue is we have a proprietor who loves flat shots and modifying the volume almost on a weekly basis so no one can get grooved in. I kind of like the challenge, since I basically don't bowl tournaments anymore, but that kind of thing screws with the baseline. The one tournament I have bowled in over the last 5 years, out of town, I finished 2nd. It was a regional tournament (not PBA regional, just regional in scope) and I averaged something like 230 for 9 games. With the kind of handicap I'd accumulated over the last 3 years, how tough do you think it was to catch me?
My very long point here is that I think the whole deal is futile. I'm almost to the point where I don't think handicap has a place in tournaments anymore. On the other hand, we still have to flight people somehow. I don't have the answer. I don't know if there *IS* an "answer." And with the game fast receding in interest, I wouldn't be surprised if I lived to see its eventual end. This whole three-tiered ratings thing feels like deck chairs on the Titanic to me.
Jess