let's talk about averages

[bowl1820]

Here was a interesting idea from a post in another forum, where I posed this question regarding averages.

Do you think averages and how they are figured in bowling are a accurate measurement of a bowlers level of skill?


no ... i think there should be some "slope rating" for bowling like there is for golf

you would have to look at all of the averages of bowlers in that house, and how their average in that house compares to their averages in other houses, to determine the "difficulty" of a certain house

but of course to do that, you would have to have some kind of consistency of conditions at each house ... good luck with that at some places

Giving houses a difficulty rating was interesting. I thought maybe some kind of difficulty rating for shots might be factored in to the mix someway.

[JAnderson]

The IBSSNumber would represent a bowlers versatility, accuracy, power, repeatability and knowledge.

While interesting, it is subjective, so beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. For general league play, all of the above traits can actually be counter-productive to scoring. (If you question this, please open another thread and send me a mail!) Unfortunately, scoring is one of the only non-subjective ways to measure performance.

I wish there was a way we could consistently and accurately connect a bowler's scores to their monetary winnings (gross). I'm aware that it is not feasible and will likely never be feasible, but it is a system that could work. A bowler would be rated on his/her scores as compared to monetary earnings. Even "Vegas" leagues "pay out" in the form of a trip to Vegas that has a monetary value. This type of system would, for example, help weed out those who purposely keep low averages in inconsequential money leagues to reap the rewards in high payout tournaments. (Their "average" would be based more on their tournament scores because of the weight afforded)

So just a quick example:

Bowler averages 160 in league and wins $100 for the season
Bowler averages 150 in another league and wins $200 for the season
Bowler averages 200 in a tournament and wins $4700

Bowler's average is as follows

160 x 100 (money won at this average) / 5000 (total money won)
150 x 200 / 5000
200 x 4700 / 5000
----------------------
Add the results for an adjusted average of 197.2

[bowl1820]

While interesting, it is subjective, so beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. For general league play, all of the above traits can actually be counter-productive to scoring. (If you question this, please open another thread and send me a mail!) Unfortunately, scoring is one of the only non-subjective ways to measure performance.

In regard to the IBSSNumber in slowinski's article. I believe it's not meant to be used as a "average" or such in like a league situation. It's just as a bowler ranking system and/or for coaches/bowler's to have a more accurate method of determining their strengths and weaknesses.

As for it being "subjective" Slowinski's four domains: accuracy, versatility, repeatability and power. All can be measured using CAT's and BowlersMAP and DigiTrax according to him (his whole article basically explains how to measure the different parts).

So I'd say you can't say it's subjective, the closest one to being subjective might be the Versatility part.

I don't believe factoring in a bowlers monetary winnings with their average to come up a adjusted average would work. Things like what money would be included? winnings from brackets,pots? what about normal league prize fund payouts would they be included.

If averages are adjusted it should be based on what the bowler bowled.