A Modest Proposal

[RobLV1]

While playing golf with my regular Saturday morning group today (20 players today), it occurs to me that there is a huge difference in the way handicaps are calculated between golf and bowling. In bowling, we start the first week, and each subsequent week is calculated into the total to form the handicap. The result is that the rounds at the beginning of the year have a much greater impact on individual bowler's handicaps than rounds at the end of the year. In golf, there is a predetermined number of rounds (usually 20 or 10) that is used to calculate handicap. Each time a new score is added, the oldest score drops off. In this way, it is only the last 10 or 20 weeks that influence the handicap. Would this work for bowling?

[bowl1820]

In this way, it is only the last 10 or 20 weeks that influence the handicap. Would this work for bowling?

Another old chestnut appears again, The idea of basing handicap on your average for the last X number of games/weeks bowled.

Example: Your Handicap is based on your average for your last 21 games (7 weeks).

That's came up many times over the years and has never went anywhere.

[Blacksox1]

While playing golf with my regular Saturday morning group today (20 players today), it occurs to me that there is a huge difference in the way handicaps are calculated between golf and bowling. In bowling, we start the first week, and each subsequent week is calculated into the total to form the handicap. The result is that the rounds at the beginning of the year have a much greater impact on individual bowler's handicaps than rounds at the end of the year. In golf, there is a predetermined number of rounds (usually 20 or 10) that is used to calculate handicap. Each time a new score is added, the oldest score drops off. In this way, it is only the last 10 or 20 weeks that influence the handicap. Would this work for bowling?

After a 35 week season, it resets anyways. But yes, it could work for bowling. The league secretary may cuss you weekly Rob. I am sure you can handle it.

[fordman1]

To many leagues start at scratch in the 1st week. We use a 21 game cushion to start every year. We have a 10 pin drop rule. New bowlers use the highest book avg. from the last 3 yrs.

[foreverincamo]

Never head of this one. Doubt if league secretary would want that much work

[fordman1]

Its called league software. BLS does it all automatically. I am the sec. just put in the scores and you are done. The houses that do the sec work don't even have to that. Just download the scores. It will d treas. work too.

[Hot_pocket]

If i understand it correctly, Wouldn't it make dumping easier?

[RobLV1]

If i understand it correctly, Wouldn't it make dumping easier?

The system used in golf does not eliminate sandbagging, but it makes it a whole lot more difficult to do it. Consider that in bowling as it stands, an individual or a team can have a few bad sets at the beginning of a very long season and those sets will affect the handicaps for the entire year. With the golf system used in bowling, after a given number of sets, I think six or eight would work pretty well, those bad sets at the beginning would drop off, and handicaps would drop dramatically. In order to sandbag, bowlers would have to be aware of the last six or eight sets they bowled and would have to "dump" at just the right time... this may not fit into their teams needs at that particular time.

[bowl1820]

If i understand it correctly, Wouldn't it make dumping easier?

Yes it would.

The system used in golf does not eliminate sandbagging, but it makes it a whole lot more difficult to do it. Consider that in bowling as it stands, an individual or a team can have a few bad sets at the beginning of a very long season and those sets will affect the handicaps for the entire year. With the golf system used in bowling, after a given number of sets, I think six or eight would work pretty well, those bad sets at the beginning would drop off, and handicaps would drop dramatically.

using the golf system in bowling if your a sandbagger you don't worry about about dropping the sets at the beginning of the period. You look at when to add in the bad sets later on, because you want to drop good sets at the beginning of the period.

In order to sandbag, bowlers would have to be aware of the last six or eight sets they bowled and would have to "dump" at just the right time... this may not fit into their teams needs at that particular time.

Using a 6-8 week period average to base handicap would allow a sandbagger to easily manipulate their average . It would only take a couple of nights in that period to drop a average several pins more than what you could using the current system.

Most bowlers know well in advance who they are going play on any given night, so they could easily dump a couple weeks before a important match.

Example:
Say you use a 8 week period and the league has a position round on week 18 (which my league does).

Your averaging 200 the first 6 weeks of the 8 week period, The 2 weeks before position round you just have modest "bad" nights of averaging only 180.

You'll drop average by 5 pins to a 195 going into the position round, using the current system you'd only drop 3 pins to a 197.

Those 2 bad nights don't have to be just before the P.R. either, they can be spaced out over the 8 week period.

Which would easily allow a team to space out and have bowlers on the team dump a night and drop the team average by 16 -20 pins or more. Without overly affecting the team performance on any given night.

You wouldn't even have to dump a whole series, just dump one game a night for 8 weeks and you'd keep your overall average down. Then go into a P.R. and blow it away.

[Aslan]

Most leagues use the last season's average in that league as your starting average in the following season.

So, it's harder to sandbag using that system. A person would have to sandbag an entire season just to see the benefits the following season. Some leagues that have had problems at sweeps (due to the proximity of Vegas/Laughlin...most leagues sweep), many leagues are instituting a 15-pin rule where your average can't be more than 15 pins lower than it was the season before...if it is, you use the last season's average as your average at sweeps.

What I don't like is the concept of using your Highest average from last season. Seems like you would want to use the average of all averages. For the past two seasons I've averaged in the low 170s in one league and the high 180s/low 190s in the other league. So each season, and every tournament, I have to start out at 189-190 when there's no way I average that. I think there is SO much variation house-to-house that using the average from all leagues makes more sense than the highest ONE league you bowled in an easy house.

One might say, then don't bowl in an "easy house"...but usually you don't know it's easy/hard until you bowl there. And once you find out, you're already locked in and now that average follows you around for 3 years. Not to mention, I know tournament bowlers that will purposely bowl in a harder house to pad their handicap for tournaments.

You could get rid of a lot of that manipulation with an average of all pins that fell divided by all games played that season (with sport adjustments of course). We had this debate back when I started the VBT and when I was planning the 1st ABHMAVZSCI. MWhite bowled in like 9 different leagues...most of which as a sub. So I figured the fairest way to calculate his actual average was to count all those averages and weight them by games played:

Example: [(193 * 12) + (194 * 6) + (201 * 3) + (205 * 30) + (191 * 6) + (199 * 18) + (198 * 42) + (200 * 12) + (202 * 15)] / (12 + 6 + 3 + 30 + 6 + 18 + 42 + 12 +15) = 199

That way, leagues where you play more games count more, but you still count the leagues where you subbed. In the example, the player actually benefits because the highest average (21 games or more) is 205...yet he's starting with a 199. If I remember correctly, in MW's case...he started with a 199 when if you added up all of his games and did it as above...it would equal 201. Not a bigee. But for me and ZDawg...it was more significant. ZDawg had like a 157 average but in a league where he subbed for 9-12 games he was averaging like 189. So, in that example:

= [(157*48) + (189 * 12)]/60 = 163 (versus 157)

Either way I dominated them in competition...to the point that after two seasons I think they gave up bowling and took up model trains...but that first tournament it came down to ZDawg in the 10th.