BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: bsone1 on August 28, 2012, 02:58:21 PM
-
Looking for opinions on what the ideal handicap % is and what average to base it off of for say a league with averages ranging from 180 to 235...
-
If you want the league as fair as possible with a slight advantage to your high average bowlers....90% of 240. Anything less than 90% or 230 gives a very big advantage to your high end bowlers.
This gives everyone a 90% level playing field. Your high average bowler shooting their average will beat a lower average bowler by a pin or two when they shoot their average.
Math doesn't lie....
-
100% of your highest average in the league.
If you truly want to make it equal, that is a close as you can get.
-
100% of your highest average in the league.
If you truly want to make it equal, that is a close as you can get.
Agree.
-
According to comparison studies by the USBC, I had heard that the percentage that would make handicap bowlers = to scratch bowlers is 110%.
When I told that to our league president last night at our annual league meeting (he is also the association lane rep and is very active in the USBC), he told me the current figure is 116%!!!
In our league we have people averaging anywhere from 170 to 242. We changed our handicap to 100% of 250. It had been 90% last year. I just rejoined this league after a hiatus of 6-8 years.
My personal opinion, NOT being a 240 average bowler, is that a fair figure would be somewhere between 90 and 100%. Somehow 90% seems too low and 100% seems too high.
-
According to comparison studies by the USBC, I had heard that the percentage that would make handicap bowlers = to scratch bowlers is 110%.
When I told that to our league president last night at our annual league meeting (he is also the association lane rep and is very active in the USBC), he told me the current figure is 116%!!!
In our league we have people averaging anywhere from 170 to 242. We changed our handicap to 100% of 250. It had been 90% last year. I just rejoined this league after a hiatus of 6-8 years.
My personal opinion, NOT being a 240 average bowler, is that a fair figure would be somewhere between 90 and 100%. Somehow 90% seems too low and 100% seems too high.
I have seen that study as well (the %110 figure), but there is no way you would convince the higher averages to give up those extra pins! ;D
But it is reasonable when we consider that generally a career 170 bowler is not going to hit their average as often as a 230+ bowler. So even with %100 percent, the higher average will still have an advantage.
I would find %100 acceptable if I bowled in a handicap league, but I'm glad I don't have to deal with it. ;D
-
I believe that handicap should be based on the difference in average between the two teams. While 90 percent won't give the lower average team an equal chance I think it is reasonable. The lower average bowlers will have an incentive to work harder.
A big reason why even a 100 percent handicap will not make for equal opportunity is that at any level the higher average bowler is more likely to do well in the last frame. So a 230 average bowler is more likely to double to win the game in the tenth frame than a 205 average bowler. Not every time of course but often enough to to be a real advantage and result in more points won.
-
I was the league pres a few years back and was trying to get some accurate info on this very subject
It was when the ABC was till here in the Milwaukee area
I did talk with someone there nad at the time the studies showed 113% as the fair handicap based on 2 years of all sanctioned league scores bowled.
I was on the higher side of the league averages and I stood up and tried to convince everyone that 100% would be a good thing.
then a couple of womens teams, low average 1st timers joined the league.
I was at 225 and there were a few under a 100 average
Was agonizing, couple spares and good counts, think I lost every time,
even had 750 something and lost
I am glad I'm away from those leagues, no way to keep everyone happy
-
heres a link to the "THE FACTS ABOUT HANDICAPS" article:
http://www.bowlhouston.com/pdf/misc/TheFactsAboutHandicaps-2010.pdf
-
What so amazing about USBC and handicap is they promote handicap and their annual tournament is a scratch event!!! If they're so sold on handicap, why is their tournament scratch? They do have the classified division, but it's for lower averages! Just a thought when talking about handicap and the USBC!!
-
The USBC study is a little misleading. When they say the higher average team wins more often at current handicap levels, they mean the teams ABOVE THE MEDIAN of the league. USBC is referring to half the teams in a league as "high average" teams. Not the HIGHEST AVERAGE team.
I personally wouldn't bowl in a league above 100% and I wouldn't bowl in a competitive league above 90%.
-
The other side of the argument in regards to having a high handicap base of 230-240, is that most people think that the high average bowler has an advantage. BUT what most people dont realize, is that one guy doesnt win a league; a TEAM does. If you cap the entering average for a team, then teams cant stack 4-5 guys with 220+ averages. So, is there really a need to base handicap that high?
A couple years ago, my team won a league even though on paper we were far from the best team in the league. We had 1 guy at 195, 3 at 205, and myself at 230. The handicap in that league was 90% of 220. The highest average in the league was 242 and that team did not win. I am not for certain if there is a team average cap but I know on paper we were probably a top 10 team, maybe. We did not win that league because of me at 230. We won that league because every week, there was someone at those "lower" averages shooting 680+.
IMO....it depends on the type of league that should determine handicap. Money leagues should be based on lower handicap because it should be the top bowlers bowling in that league. If it is a handicap "fun" league, then handicaps should be a little higher. People always say that high average bowlers should not be bowling in handicap fun leagues and it should be said vice versa. A guy averaging 170 probably should not be bowling in a big money league because they will be considered donators.
SO..........you take a money league, make it lower handicap base (210ish), and you put an entering average team cap so teams cant be stacked. Therefore, the 230 guy doesnt really have an advantage because he is going to have to bowl with two 190 guys to fall under a cap and also the 230 guy wont be able to say he shot 750 and doesnt make a dime in brackets and also lost points for the night to a guy that shoots 680. THEN...you take a handicap mixed league that doesnt have much money and you make the handicap higher so that it steers away the guys that do average 230 because they know they have no chance to make any money as they know they have to shoot 725-750 every night to stay competitive.
-
If you're talking about the "fairest" handicap, it would absolutely have to be 100% of somewhere near the highest average bowler in the league. The math proves anything less than 100% gives the higher average bowler an advantage. Depends on the league though, some leagues are good with 90% or 90% of the difference in team averages. A lot of variables come into play in my opinion.
-
heres a link to the "THE FACTS ABOUT HANDICAPS" article:
http://www.bowlhouston.com/pdf/misc/TheFactsAboutHandicaps-2010.pdf
Thanks for linking to that. I have heard that 116% number thrown around. its funny how the people that say that rarely discuss the section about how higher average bowlers have earned it and that the USBC does not recommend using that value. What incentive would anyone have to get better if you got rewarded for being bad? Sounds like an awful plan for bowling.
And like all systems ... people will find a way to cheat it. Most systems are successful when the people that are governed by them are honest and fair. A system that rewards bad bowling doesn't seem like it will make an honest person out of anyone.
So lets see, Team A, a team of 150 average bowlers who get 116% of 240 for their average get 240 - 150 * 1.16 = 104 pins a person or 520 for a 5 person team. Team B has 5 240 average bowlers ... well they get 0.
So on an average night Team A bowls their average and shoots 150 x 5 + 104 x 5 = 1270 ... Team B bowls their average and gets 1200 and loses by 70 pins. Yeah, that sounds pretty fair. I think I will recommend this at my next league meeting.
-
We tried 100% a few years ago and it was a joke the highest average teams finish last and the lowest average team won the league. This happen 2 years running. We have found that 90% of ( We use the highest average in the association). You have to make your base more than you highest average in the league. If not the bowler's above the base are getting bonus pins.
-
Ya anyone that thinks 100% of any average is on crack cocaine. Some fool was able to get this by on one of leagues that I've bowled every single fall and summer since 1997 which was previously 90% of 210 and never had a problem. Never wanted to raise the average or really lower it. But never even considered changing the percentage. It hurts the upper average bowlers TOO much and is unfair and next week if this same guy tries this in the fall it isn't going to pass without a fight. I will be the first one to revert this rule next summer also.
-
Ya anyone that thinks 100% of any average is on crack cocaine. Some fool was able to get this by on one of leagues that I've bowled every single fall and summer since 1997 which was previously 90% of 210 and never had a problem. Never wanted to raise the average or really lower it. But never even considered changing the percentage. It hurts the upper average bowlers TOO much and is unfair and next week if this same guy tries this in the fall it isn't going to pass without a fight. I will be the first one to revert this rule next summer also.
I agree. I understand the thinking "on paper" that the base of 240 is fair. Numbers dont lie. HOWEVER...people dont look at the reality of what really happens when you place the base that high. It will promote sandbagging unlike no other.
In a point league where individual bowlers bowl against an individual from the opposing team, if the handicap is based off of 240, you are going to see winning percentages of those higher average bowlers in the 25% area. In leagues I have bowled in, even at my 230 "average", I barely win half my points and the handicap is based off of 220. So where is the advantage at? It is basically 50/50 wins and losses.
If you make the base too high, the "scratch" bowlers will disappear and if you make it too low, the handicap people will leave. You have to find a happy medium.
-
Ya anyone that thinks 100% of any average is on crack cocaine. Some fool was able to get this by on one of leagues that I've bowled every single fall and summer since 1997 which was previously 90% of 210 and never had a problem. Never wanted to raise the average or really lower it. But never even considered changing the percentage. It hurts the upper average bowlers TOO much and is unfair and next week if this same guy tries this in the fall it isn't going to pass without a fight. I will be the first one to revert this rule next summer also.
I agree. I understand the thinking "on paper" that the base of 240 is fair. Numbers dont lie. HOWEVER...people dont look at the reality of what really happens when you place the base that high. It will promote sandbagging unlike no other.
In a point league where individual bowlers bowl against an individual from the opposing team, if the handicap is based off of 240, you are going to see winning percentages of those higher average bowlers in the 25% area. In leagues I have bowled in, even at my 230 "average", I barely win half my points and the handicap is based off of 220. So where is the advantage at? It is basically 50/50 wins and losses.
If you make the base too high, the "scratch" bowlers will disappear and if you make it too low, the handicap people will leave. You have to find a happy medium.
I think it's very subjective to the league base. While you won 1/2 of your points, last year in a ind. point league (4) points per player per night I won 85 out of a possible 140 points.(which was the high point total) This league uses 100% handicap and I averaged 10 pins over the base score.
We often look at different scenarios for our leagues to make them as fair for every team out there. Our team finished tied for 5th place (highest team average in the league) just by changing the handicap to 90% we would have jumped into 1st place. Also if we would have changed the base score to my average, I would have lost the point total award.
Like I said every league is different, but in today's bowling with the lack of actual scratch leagues, you have to equalize the playing field as much as possible or people will lose interest. Does is sometimes promote "sandbagging" of course it does, there's kind of no way around that in today's environment. 98% of league bowlers are just that "league bowlers", most don't care if they get better, they just want to have a night out and have some sort of chance to win.
-
Just to play devils advocate here...
Why does the highest average, or above average team "deserve" to win?
Why can't the lowest average team win the league? Why do they bowl if they have no chance to ever win?
-
Just to play devils advocate here...
Why does the highest average, or above average team "deserve" to win?
Why can't the lowest average team win the league? Why do they bowl if they have no chance to ever win?
Exactly! You are bowling in a HANDICAP LEAGUE! It means everyone has a chance.
-
Just to play devils advocate here...
Why does the highest average, or above average team "deserve" to win?
Why can't the lowest average team win the league? Why do they bowl if they have no chance to ever win?
Exactly! You are bowling in a HANDICAP LEAGUE! It means everyone has a chance.
Mostly because the high average guys complain more than the low average guys. I'm a high average guy but i realize you need all of the other bowlers to have a solid league. not to mention the fact that i'm in the bowling business. In our most successful men's league as I stated above my team had the highest team average and finished in 5th place. Our league is set up to give every team in the league a fair chance to win. I think that's all anyone wants, and it's my belief that 100% of somewhere around the highest average is a lot more fair than 90%.
-
Just to play devils advocate here...
Why does the highest average, or above average team "deserve" to win?
Why can't the lowest average team win the league? Why do they bowl if they have no chance to ever win?
Exactly! You are bowling in a HANDICAP LEAGUE! It means everyone has a chance.
Mostly because the high average guys complain more than the low average guys. I'm a high average guy but i realize you need all of the other bowlers to have a solid league. not to mention the fact that i'm in the bowling business. In our most successful men's league as I stated above my team had the highest team average and finished in 5th place. Our league is set up to give every team in the league a fair chance to win. I think that's all anyone wants, and it's my belief that 100% of somewhere around the highest average is a lot more fair than 90%.
I agree with that to an extent. What some people should understand is that what happens in a town with 5 million people and a large bowler base is not the same as a town with only 200,000 people and a smaller base. In Atlanta, where I am from, we dont necessarily have to have "those bowlers" to make a solid league because we probably have hundreds if not thousands of bowlers averaging over 200 on their league shots. If you go to a smaller town, then you would need "those bowlers" to make a solid league. So different locations are relevant to what is needed and what isnt. But i do understand what you are saying though.
-
Just to play devils advocate here...
Why does the highest average, or above average team "deserve" to win?
Why can't the lowest average team win the league? Why do they bowl if they have no chance to ever win?
Exactly! You are bowling in a HANDICAP LEAGUE! It means everyone has a chance.
Mostly because the high average guys complain more than the low average guys. I'm a high average guy but i realize you need all of the other bowlers to have a solid league. not to mention the fact that i'm in the bowling business. In our most successful men's league as I stated above my team had the highest team average and finished in 5th place. Our league is set up to give every team in the league a fair chance to win. I think that's all anyone wants, and it's my belief that 100% of somewhere around the highest average is a lot more fair than 90%.
I agree with that to an extent. What some people should understand is that what happens in a town with 5 million people and a large bowler base is not the same as a town with only 200,000 people and a smaller base. In Atlanta, where I am from, we dont necessarily have to have "those bowlers" to make a solid league because we probably have hundreds if not thousands of bowlers averaging over 200 on their league shots. If you go to a smaller town, then you would need "those bowlers" to make a solid league. So different locations are relevant to what is needed and what isnt. But i do understand what you are saying though.
Exactly, totally agree with you. In my area it's hard to get huge leagues together. Demographics of your bowling center play a key role on how you can format leagues.
-
I think 90% of the high average is about right. But there should be a rule that states the max score with handicap is 300. 301 and higher is not possible scratch, and it shouldn't be possible w/ handicap. If you are allowed over 300, it just turns into a pins over average competition. In this situation, a 225 average bowlers max pins over average is 75. While a 180 average bowler has a possible pins over average of 125. In no way is this fair to a higher average bowler.