2017 World Bowling Tour Finals

[bowl1820]

PBABowling
Published on Jan 7, 2018
The 2017 World Bowling Tour Finals feature Diana Zavjalova, Danielle McEwan and Shalin Zulkifli in the women's final and Marshall Kent, Jesper Svensson and Jason Belmonte in the men's final.

Originally aired live on ESPN3 November 19, 2017 and again on ESPN January 7, 2018 from the National Bowling Stadium in Reno, Nevada.

[bowl1820]

That new scoring system

[J Anderson]

That new scoring system

Seems to me that the only advantage is that the score is complete at the end of each frame. It seems to over value strikes. It would be interesting to see if the results would have been different using traditional scoring.

[chip82901]

Seems to me that the only advantage is that the score is complete at the end of each frame. It seems to over value strikes. It would be interesting to see if the results would have been different using traditional scoring.

It's not so much over value strikes as it is under valuing open frames. Where you can lose 20+ pins on an open frame traditionally, you only lose 10 in this format.

[bowl1820]

Seems to me that the only advantage is that the score is complete at the end of each frame. It seems to over value strikes. It would be interesting to see if the results would have been different using traditional scoring.

For the first game (McEwan and Zulkifli) McEwan would have still won, though the scores would have been lower.

McEwan (244) had a possible 226 and Zulkifli (231) had a possible 199 if they had scored it normally and shot strikes on the bonus ball.

[mishatx]

Seems to me that the only advantage is that the score is complete at the end of each frame. It seems to over value strikes. It would be interesting to see if the results would have been different using traditional scoring.

The traditional method puts an emphasis on consecutive strikes, and more punishes open frames following a mark (especially following two strikes). This method puts more a little more value on first ball count in some circumstances. It also means that two bowlers who bowl basically the same frame scores won't have the winner determined by strike strings.

Bowler/Frame	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Bowler1	X	9/	X	9/	X	9/	X	9/	X	9/X
	20	40	60	80	100	120	140	160	180	200
Bowler2	X	9/	X	9/	X	X	9/	9/	X	9/X
	20	40	60	80	109	129	148	168	188	208

Bowler 2 wins on account of the double, even though both bowlers had the same shots otherwise.

vs

Bowler/Frame	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Bowler1	X	9/	X	9/	X	9/	X	9/	X	9/
	30	49	79	98	128	147	177	196	226	245
Bowler2	X	9/	X	9/	X	X	9/	9/	X	9/
	30	49	79	98	128	158	177	196	226	245

It's a tie. Whether the traditional method is objectively better would depend on whether you think stringing strikes is a better display of skill, I suppose.

[mishatx]

In fact, Bowler 2 still wins under the traditional score if is first ball count in each of the spare frames is more than 5. And really, the first ball count only matters in frames 7 and 8, and as long as the first balls in those two frames total more than 10, he still wins. Under the world scoring, he loses if any first ball in a spare frame is less than 9.

Really, I like the world scoring model as a measure of skill for developing bowlers. For a player with a 150 average, stringing a few strikes together can mean a career score, whereas spreading them out just means something average. Count really doesn't matter on a frame following a single strike. So a developing player might have low counts on first balls and in open frames, but end up with a higher score because of a string of strikes than in another game with 8 and 9 counts on first balls. World Scoring could help show the improvement that's reflected with higher first ball counts. In fact, it might be reasonable to consider matches scored with world scoring as akin to a skills competition, whereas traditional scoring, which reflects the luck and capricious rules inherent in all sport, is a competition of an actual game of bowling.

[bowl1820]

Just something to note: The World Scoring system was just developed to make it easier for non bowlers to add up the score. The normal way of scoring they figured was too hard for ordinary people to understand and that's why viewer numbers had dropped.