BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: lilpossum1 on July 22, 2015, 08:07:41 PM
-
I know this has probably been covered a million times, but my dad and I are thinking about trying to get our winter league (8 team league that mostly consists of low average people) to move from 80% to 90% handicap to adjust fairness across the teams. I never really saw this as much of an issue before because I have always been on the competitive teams in that league and have always had the most points even when my team didn't win the league. On this summer league however, a team has come in with all high average guys and the handicap at 80% is not enough for any team to touch them. I see what my teams have been doing in the winter league from the other side of the perspective and want to make it more fair. Thoughts? I also know the argument that other bowlers can get better if they want to win, but sometimes there are physical limitations
-
What is the handicap based off of?
-
I used to bowl in leagues with people with low averages (ranging from 90-130). This league was more for just for fun, experimental, working on different things, ect ect. I think at times though, the handicaps can get ridiculous, one time I think I needed a 230-240 to beat the person with a handicap based on the averages above. It gets kind of ridiculous, but like I said it was just for fun to me. Personally, I think people rely too much on handicaps and not doing different things that would raise their average.
-
Right now I think the handicap is 80% of 220. It could be 200, but I think it is 220. Most of the people in this league are incapable of getting much better due to physical limitations. We don't want to go too drastic because the better players should still have an advantage
-
Should be 90% of 220 at the least.We have many averaging over 230.Those teams will still win.
-
If you have to bowl over 230 to beat the hanficap it must be 105% of 220 and you are at 220+.
-
I honestly don't remember what % the handicap was but I did shoot a 235 218 and 220 and I lost all 3 games.
-
If any team is close to the team hanicap of 880 or above it you need to raise the team handicap.
Same for individual events, always raise the handicap to above the highest average. If a Bowlers at 235, then go 80 or 90% of 240. If a team is at 900 raise team handicap to 950.
-
If any team is close to the team hanicap of 880 or above it you need to raise the team handicap.
Same for individual events, always raise the handicap to above the highest average. If a Bowlers at 235, then go 80 or 90% of 240. If a team is at 900 raise team handicap to 950.
Then why even bother with having a base average? Just base the handicap on 300 for individual handicap and it all works out the same.
-
I know this has probably been covered a million times,
Yes, The poor horse named "Handicap" has been flogged for years and just refuses to die, no matter how many times it beat. :)
The current thinking is that you want the scratch base to be higher than whatever the highest average on the league is.
As for the percentage, 90% seems to be the most widely used.
-
If any team is close to the team hanicap of 880 or above it you need to raise the team handicap.
Same for individual events, always raise the handicap to above the highest average. If a Bowlers at 235, then go 80 or 90% of 240. If a team is at 900 raise team handicap to 950.
Then why even bother with having a base average? Just base the handicap on 300 for individual handicap and it all works out the same.
You can base it on whatever you choose but if handicap is 80% of 220 (880) and you have a person at 230(0pins) bowling a person at 175(36 pins) the lower average bowler has to shoot 9 pins over his average to get to 220 with handicap. The higher average bowler can bowl 10 pins below to get 220.
Same applies for teams. If you have a team who averages above 880 for a league where handicap is based off of 880 that team will be your winner.
-
You can base it on whatever you choose but if handicap is 80% of 220 (880) and you have a person at 230(0pins) bowling a person at 175(36 pins) the lower average bowler has to shoot 9 pins over his average to get to 220 with handicap. The higher average bowler can bowl 10 pins below to get 220.
Same applies for teams. If you have a team who averages above 880 for a league where handicap is based off of 880 that team will be your winner.
I was just suggesting the 300 value since many feel the base should be the highest average in the league. By making it 300, you eliminate any issues during the season if you intent is to always have the base be the highest average.
If you base it on 230 and during the year someone is averaging 240, then that bowler gets a bonus. By making it 300, the handicap benefit will be the same for the entire year regardless of the high average.
I don't necessarily like this concept, the same as I don't like the concept of using the highest average.
-
The simple solution is one the higher average bowlers will not accept. Make it a true handicap and pick whatever base average you want at 90%. The bowlers under the base will get pins added to their score and the bowlers over the base will get pins subtracted from their score.
Example using 90% of 200
190 Avg bowler gets +9 pins
210 Avg bowler gets -9 pins
Of course, if both bowl their average, the higher average will still win, but it becomes real competitive instead of a total advantage to the higher average. If you wanted it to be completely even, then use 100%.
-
It depends on what you think makes a fair competition.
I personally see bowlers that average above 200 bowl scratch pot games after league all the time. So they must feel like they have a chance regardless if one averages 201 and the other averages 230.
I also know that for over three years of tracking over 80 bowlers at various levels all bowlers bowl a game 30+ pins over average every 6 games (and 30+ under every six games as well). Those are the frequency at teh nd of the season. A bowler can go on a streak of a month on either side of thier average.
I think fair might be 100% of 200. If anyone averaging under 200 bowls a good game (30+ pins over) they are at 230+. That is comeptitive but not a guaranteed win over a 220+ average bowler. If they are average, they are at 200 which should be competitive when the 220+ bowler bowls a bad game (30+ pins under average). I could easily be argued into 100% of 190 for the same purpose. either way the lower average bowler has a chance at least one third of the time against the high average bowler. That seems right to me.
It pretty much brings lower average up to competitive levels that people tend to put money on. the 80% or 90% of a high base just is more complicated. It also gives some incentive to get to above 200 average since all the rest is the same.
But your opinion of fair competition could be different. I have a friend I respect a lot who thinks that 100% of 230 is fair so that any pin over average is the same for everyone. And he averages much higher than me, so he woudl get less benefit than most current systems and less than what I prefer.
I do know that no one is ever going to be completely satisfied because no one is ever giong to bowl a 300 every game. So there is always a chance someone is going to beat you. And always a chance you can beat someone.
-
If I lose pins for going over 220, and shoot 300 I lose my point. Once I'm close to 220 its gutter city
-
My current league is 90% of the difference between the total of the team members' averages.
Last night our team was giving the other team 207 pins PER GAME (712 vs. 482). We still won 2 out of 3 games. The game we lost was only by 40 pins. Two of us struggled that game...had we bowled our average we would have easily won.
-
My current league is 90% of the difference between the total of the team members' averages.
Last night our team was giving the other team 207 pins PER GAME (712 vs. 482). We still won 2 out of 3 games. The game we lost was only by 40 pins. Two of us struggled that game...had we bowled our average we would have easily won.
This is what I prefer. And it isn't any different than basing the handicap on the highest average in the league assuming no one ever averages higher during the year. (also works out the same with a 300 base).
It all comes down to presentation. We bowlers are not too bright at times. If the high average in a league is 220 and you base the average on 230, then everyone gets handicap. So changing it to 225 or 250 doesn't change the outcome but it might change the perception. Some high average bowlers see handicap at 90% of 225 (avg 220) and feel a certain way about their 4 pins. Change it to 250 and they now get 27 pins. Doesn't change the outcome on a game-by-game basis but they might feel better getting the extra 23 pins.
-
I agree with the 90% of the differences between the team's averages.
USBC did some studies several years ago and said it needed to be 111% or some number like that for a handicap team to have a totally even match up based on scores nationwide. But USBC also operates in that sandbagging is nearly impossible to prove.
What some leagues I have participated in have done is divide the league into thirds or quarters. It's the casino idea. Over the long haul, the top average team will most always win a league (casino always makes money). However over a short time period a lower average team can have a hot quarter and win that quarter (hot run at tables or slots for a visit).
Then some leagues have a end of year tournament for the winners of each quarter or third bowl in a bracket or total pin event.
-
I agree with the 90% of the differences between the team's averages.
If you're going to bowl handicap, ditto……
Anytime you mix low average bowlers with high average bowlers, and try to come up with something that's "fair", you're doomed. These handicap threads pop up like relentless weeds because there are too many variables to come up with a system that isn't fatally flawed.
The best system I've participated in on fairness is team capped scratch, with a limit on minimum average. It's not perfect, but assuming the entering team averages are realistic, and teams are constructed close to the max, you have fair competition without all the nonsense associated with handicap formats.
Unfortunately, when you use the word "scratch" in any context, the majority of league bowlers run for the exits. The irony is that most bowlers who try capped scratch have a hard time going back to traditional handicap.
-
Think a lot depends on the bowling population you have to draw from. Our area has 2 centers and approximately 1500 sanctioned bowlers. We have a league in each house that is individual scratch, but 100% handicap bases on difference of teams averaged. Both leagues were capped at 800 and one league had 14 teams, the other had 8 (on military base with 12 lanes) the league downtown removed there cap because the team with highest average whined because they did not want to bowl with anyone else. That league is now down to 6 teams and the league on base with same format that is capped is now at 12 teams. Lower average bowlers were tired of paying $16 to get ass whipped every night. Sometimes not catering to the higher average bowler is what brings business and fills leagues.
-
Think a lot depends on the bowling population you have to draw from. Our area has 2 centers and approximately 1500 sanctioned bowlers. We have a league in each house that is individual scratch, but 100% handicap bases on difference of teams averaged. Both leagues were capped at 800 and one league had 14 teams, the other had 8 (on military base with 12 lanes) the league downtown removed there cap because the team with highest average whined because they did not want to bowl with anyone else. That league is now down to 6 teams and the league on base with same format that is capped is now at 12 teams. Lower average bowlers were tired of paying $16 to get ass whipped every night. Sometimes not catering to the higher average bowler is what brings business and fills leagues.
Managing any league with a team cap requires discipline. At the end of the season, you have to recalculate next year's max based on current team averages, and establish a number that's best to sustain the league.
We recently went through that process, and this year's league champion whined that they'd be over the new max and have to break up. They threatened to leave unless the max was raised to fit them. They were politely shown the door and will not be back. Apparently, the leagues in your area didn't do the same.
Caps work well if they're managed correctly. You gave a perfect example of why they sometimes don't.
-
To further Steven's point, I was in a couple leagues where they flourished because the top averages in the area belonged to 2 "clicks" that hated each other. As the money rose, the greed factor took over the hatred and the top 4 guys formed a team as there wasn't a cap. Of course they won. And within 3 years the league lost 70% of it's membership.
Few bowlers want to bowl with no shot at winning (beer drinking friends, aside). All teams have to think they have a chance at a top finish or why would they bowl? That is the goal. In the end of every league, 75% of teams are donators. The key is they can't know that to start the league or they won't bowl.