Author Topic: 900 series-- Should this even be possible? (Read 6245 times)

Juggernaut · « **on:** February 14, 2006, 05:57:44 AM »

I don't usually get caught up in subjects like this, but I have been thinking about all the supposed 900's being shot lately.

A 900 series would lead you to believe that, whoever shot it, must've bowled to a level of PERFECTION! And continued to do so for three consecutive games! However, as we all know, absolute perfection is absolutely un-attainable.

Before you get mad, go off, or decide to flame me, think about this. How does this look in relation to the "other" sports?

Has there EVER been a basketball player to make every single shot he throws up in a game? ( given that he is a regular and takes at least the obligatory 12 shots like a bowling game) How about for three consecutive games?

How about golf? ( Oh GOD, here comes the golf analogy ) Has ANYONE EVER managed to shoot 18? Isn't that a perfect game in golf? How about three 18's in a row? Ever shoot 54 for three rounds?

Yes, there have been several perfect games in baseball, but has ANYONE ever been able to do it three times in a row?

I know these analogies aren't perfect. Heck, they probably leave a lot to be desired, but they are intended to get you thinking.

Now that 900 has been shot, and repeatedly, it makes me think that it lends itself nicely to those who would like to dismiss bowling as nothing more than a "game", or perhaps a parlor trick that ANYONE can learn. I think the proliferation of all these "perfect" series only serves to make the game look a bit less legitimate than before.

That is all the naysayers and the olympic committees will need to keep on turning a blind eye to us.

I know we can't "put the genie back in the bottle" so to speak, but we NEED to find a way to take scoring back to a place where it is more believable. I don't think avaraging 200 is out of the question, and I believe that very accomplished bowlers should, at times, have a shot at a 300 game, I am just afraid that all these 900's are, for laypeople at least, making the sport look much more like a "game".

P.S. And no, I don't know how to return the scoring to a more "normal" pace, and I have my own opinions of modern bowling ball technology, but this (technology) isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about making 300 an achievment to be admired again, and a 900 just a wierd, wonderful, once in a lifetime achievment. (and I mean only one person in ALL our lifetimes)
--------------------
Why be difficult when, with just a bit more effort, you can be IMPOSSIBLE!

Djarum · « **Reply #16 on:** February 15, 2006, 07:01:23 AM »

quote:
quote:
A 900 series would lead you to believe that, whoever shot it, must've bowled to a level of PERFECTION! And continued to do so for three consecutive games! However, as we all know, absolute perfection is absolutely un-attainable.

This is the first place you're wrong. I've never thrown a 300 game, but for all of you out there that have, has every one of those 12 shots been perfect? I'd be willing to bet that more often than not, there is at least one shot that shouldn't have carried but did, whether with a flying messenger, late trip, or brooklyn.

There is an optimum strike, where the ball hits the 1-3-5-9, and the appropriate pins ricochet into the next pin in line. We've known about the "perfect strike" for a long time and that's why we throw hooking balls. Tests were done to show that a particular pattern or sequence of pin actions results in a strike fundamentally every single time.

But for those of you with so-called perfect games, have they all been with "perfect" strikes? As I said, probably not. So why would a 900 series indicate absolute perfection? For those of you with 3 perfect games or more (in series or not), has each individually been comprised of 12 "perfect" strikes? Or has at least one of those 36 shots been lucky? Why do we feel like a 900 series should be absolutely perfect, when any three individual 300 games are rarely so?

quote:
How about golf? ( Oh GOD, here comes the golf analogy ) Has ANYONE EVER managed to shoot 18? Isn't that a perfect game in golf? How about three 18's in a row? Ever shoot 54 for three rounds?

This is the second place where your argument breaks down. Honestly, I doubt you really buy it anyway. Still, you say a "perfect" round of golf is a score of 18. Consider, though, what that's comprised of and how it compares to bowling. An 18 round of golf is 18 holes-in-one. Forget "in-a-row" or 18 instead of 12. Ask your golf buddies if a hole-in-one is comparable to throwing a strike. None of them will say it is.

Every few months, some bowler who also plays golf (and is frequently named "Sawbones") asks whether a hole-in-one means more or less than a 300 game, or what the bowling/golf equivalent is to a hole-in-one or 300 game. In my mind, a hole-in-one is much more comparable to picking up the 7-10 or Big-4 than a 300 game.

You don't mean to have a hole-in-one, nor do you mean to pick up the 7-10 split. It's a one-shot, absolute luck, Tiger-isn't-any-more-likely thing. If Randy Pedersen has picked up the 7-10 seven times (which I think he's said on TV), it's because he's bowled 10000 games to my 1000, not because he's that much better than me. 18 holes-in-one would be like an all-spare series with nothing but 7-10s, Big-4s, and Greek Churches.

Now, consider the 900 series in a statistical manner. So I look at last week's Spare Shots, and see that Mike Machuga has a 65.22 match-play strike percentage. He's at the top of the list (as of last week). If we take that to mean that there's a 65.22% chance he strikes on the first ball he throws, and assume that getting one strike is independent of getting another (which may or may not be true), then he has a 0.6522*0.6522=0.425 chance of throwing a double, about 42.5%. Think of it as flipping a coin that's weighted to land heads (strike) 65.22% of the time.

For him to throw a perfect game, his odds are 0.6522^12, approximately 0.6%. If he bowls 1000 games, he'll have 12-in-a-row roughly 6 times. The careful eye will notice I said "12-in-a-row", not "perfect games". For him to carry 36 shots in a row, there's a 2.08e-7 chance, or, 36-in-a-row one time in nearly 5 million frames. Statistically, not definitely.

Now, looking at the "Lonnie Whatshisname's 900" thread, his member info shows him averaging 220+, for the most part. Assuming the strike percentage for the typical 220-average bowler is comparable to Mike Machuga's, only there are thousands of 220-average bowlers, the 36-in-a-row is more reasonable. 850+ is more reasonable. Now, that's still not quite the same as a 900 series, since those 36-in-a-row have to happen in just the right places (specifically, the start of league night or tournament block), but the proverbial law of averages does say that 900 is not only possible, but inevitable.

SH

SH

Shelly,

I understand what you are saying here, BUT, the point of bowling is getting the pins down, but doesn't matter how. There isn't anyone judging us on how well we throw the ball or how the ball actually carries through the pins. This is like asking a field goal kicker to make sure all his kicks are perfectly down the middle. I'm sure most of the best kickers have had a few doinks that went in. Or some basketball shots that doinked in. I would agree, the most consistent way to hit a strike is carry the 1-2 pocket. But in my experiences, this is not true from house to house. At my house, if you hit flush you are going to leave a 10 pin. I don't know if it is the decks, but the 10 rarely get's carried on a flush shot. You actually have to hit the pocket light, and have the ball exert enough energy to do so. The 10 carries every time. I have also seen houses where the only way to carry was flush high. Flush and light shots would not carry. I understand that this is due to A) angle of the ball and the difference from house to house is B) oil pattern and C) pin deck.

I agree, 900 series is possible and inevitable, and a great achievment for anyone. Is it perfection? I really don't think so.

Dj
--------------------
The views and opinions of Djarum expressed on BallReviews.com do not necessarily state or reflect those of the BallReviews.com.

shelley · « **Reply #17 on:** February 15, 2006, 08:29:09 AM »

quote:
I understand what you are saying here, BUT, the point of bowling is getting the pins down, but doesn't matter how. There isn't anyone judging us on how well we throw the ball or how the ball actually carries through the pins.
...
I agree, 900 series is possible and inevitable, and a great achievment for anyone. Is it perfection? I really don't think so.

That is what I said. I've nearly always been of the opinion that it's not "how", it's "how many". I don't expect a "perfect" game to consist only of "perfect" strikes, nor would I expect a "perfect" series to be the absolute perfection of execution and deliverition.

If there is a 900 series that you can't point to the lane conditions or pre-bowling to tear down, it's Duke's (whose only fault is that it was over two blocks). PBA lane conditions, which, back then, were still probably more difficult than a house shot. Sharing the lane with others. And, if TV is any judge, those conditions break down faster than a house shot.

We are using the word "perfect" in two competing senses. In the bowling sense, "perfection" is simply all strikes. In the more general sense, "perfection" means without flaw. Given the luck that no one can deny in our sport, the more general "perfect" may never be achieved. But we'll never know, because we don't use an "X" for a "real" strike and a "Y" for a lucky strike.

And for the record, the only time it should be "how" and not "how many" is when the other team carries the frickin' house like they do every week we bowl.

SH

Author Topic: 900 series-- Should this even be possible? (Read 6245 times)

Juggernaut

900 series-- Should this even be possible?

Djarum

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?

shelley

Re: 900 series-- Should this even be possible?