No worries Gene, I didn't take offense. I actually bowl a PBA league year round and drive 45 miles each way to do it. 


I honestly think USBC has realized that a large group of bowlers don't bother with the Open because they know they have no chance. That is probably the reason for this years changes(adding another division, no prior knowledge of the pattern, etc). It at least gives them some glimmer of hope to compete.


I don't want to be a negative nellie, just realistic about how fickle league bowlers are.

Quote from: Gene J Kanak on April 26, 2017, 12:30:03 PM

I don't necessarily agree with people abandoning the Open, Milo. Most bowlers know that they have little to no chance of truly competing; they go mostly as a vacation and to say that they bowled. Now, you're certainly right about some people wanting to jump ship, but that happens as it is.

As for people not wanting to bowl on tougher patterns, that's where the tiered idea comes in. If they want wide open house shots, let them have them, but then they have to accept the consequence of bowling up at the Open Championships if they choose to go. It's the same thing when house hacks bowl PBA stops when they're local. They know that they probably don't have any shot of competing, but they do it because they want to be able to say that they did.

Long story short, there is no magical solution that will please everyone and stop the cheaters. If there were, someone would've come up with it by now. As such, I'm just tossing out concepts. I, by no means, expect them to be adopted and taken as gospel. I just figure making suggestions is better than either bitching and doing nothing to help or throwing my hands up and accepting how things are now (to be clear, those statements aren't directed at you, Milo, just the general whiny bowlers that we all know and hear from day in and day out.).

Quote from: milorafferty on April 26, 2017, 01:08:30 PM

No worries Gene, I didn't take offense. I actually bowl a PBA league year round and drive 45 miles each way to do it. 


I honestly think USBC has realized that a large group of bowlers don't bother with the Open because they know they have no chance. That is probably the reason for this years changes(adding another division, no prior knowledge of the pattern, etc). It at least gives them some glimmer of hope to compete.


I don't want to be a negative nellie, just realistic about how fickle league bowlers are.

Quote from: Gene J Kanak on April 26, 2017, 12:30:03 PM

I don't necessarily agree with people abandoning the Open, Milo. Most bowlers know that they have little to no chance of truly competing; they go mostly as a vacation and to say that they bowled. Now, you're certainly right about some people wanting to jump ship, but that happens as it is.

As for people not wanting to bowl on tougher patterns, that's where the tiered idea comes in. If they want wide open house shots, let them have them, but then they have to accept the consequence of bowling up at the Open Championships if they choose to go. It's the same thing when house hacks bowl PBA stops when they're local. They know that they probably don't have any shot of competing, but they do it because they want to be able to say that they did.

Long story short, there is no magical solution that will please everyone and stop the cheaters. If there were, someone would've come up with it by now. As such, I'm just tossing out concepts. I, by no means, expect them to be adopted and taken as gospel. I just figure making suggestions is better than either bitching and doing nothing to help or throwing my hands up and accepting how things are now (to be clear, those statements aren't directed at you, Milo, just the general whiny bowlers that we all know and hear from day in and day out.).

That's probably my biggest beef with some people. USBC is far from perfect and has made some mistakes. However, I wish more bowlers would take some level of accountability. If we want tougher patterns, we can either demand that from the proprietor, or we can take our business elsewhere to a house that offers them. If we don't like high powered bowling balls, we can still use urethane, plastic, and even rubber if you pilfer some house ball racks. In the end, there is just so much hypocrisy among bowlers. A lot of us talk big, but when push comes to shove, we don't really follow through. That's why I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that the membership decline has to do with scoring. Most bowlers, whether they admit it or not, like shooting big numbers even if they know the conditions they shot them on are a joke.

Two completely different things. The problem of ranking bowlers against their peers is not as complex as you are trying to make it.

I do this type of work every day for a living. It's my education and career for the past 20+ years.

Quote from: ITZPS on April 26, 2017, 01:51:23 PM

Yes, applying data and science to something COULD make it more accurate theoretically.  I used to work in concrete research for our state DOT and 100% of the data generated and received and input went through me in one way or another.  There's a little thing though called standard deviation, and some of our testing allowed for as high as 50% deviance due to either number of uncontrollable variables, a significant variance due to heavy human influence either because there was a large reliance on human judgment or accuracy, or because the sample was touched by an undesirable amount of people, etc. 

So yes, the data can be crunched, yes more data could make it more accurate, but the standard deviation due to the amount of variables is astronomical.  If we had a test that we could possibly lower the deviation on, sure, we'd look into it, but impact always took precedence over process especially when considering desired deviation.  If the desired standard deviation was 10%, and it's currently at 40% and you spend a lot of extra time and effort to get it down to 35%, there's no point until the process has been refined to a point where it represents a significant advance, and not everything is an advance.  Any change or adjustment always adds deviation of its own, and while you could possibly lower the standard deviation of one process or component, the associated raise in getting that accomplished might offset it or even raise the total deviation. 

In this situation, the amount of variables are so high and the conditions would change so often that the small amount of progress they're going to make effectively results in a ton of extra work for very small and likely unpredictable gain, IF there actually IS gain.  Scores are affected by so many things and so many people are so severely affected by so many different things that trying to create science or a broad brush on individual performance based on the performance of a group is going to cause more problems than it's going to solve.  You cannot predict what is going to affect an individual result and what is going to change for them based on the average of a league or center because there isn't enough data let alone enough relevant data.  There are people that bowl here that have 10-15 pin differences in their average between leagues at night or day or number of bowlers in the league and what end of the house they bowl on, etc.  The sheer amount of data you would have to have to even realistically consider using or implementing the results is staggering and without a relevant amount, you're simply moving the bar, not advancing it. 

Quote from: milorafferty on April 26, 2017, 09:15:46 AM

Gee, sounds like you are describing how the CURRENT system works.


And yes, applying data science principals would create a much more accurate profile of a bowlers true skill.


Just because you don't understand how it works, or how to do something, doesn't mean it's not valid. It is ludicrous to think otherwise.

Quote from: ITZPS on April 26, 2017, 08:17:34 AM

Yes, the numbers could technically be done, but the concept behind it is ludicrous.  Some people excel on wetter conditions or on drier conditions.  What happens when your average doesn't fit the trend of the house you bowl in and you get to go to another house that both fits your game AND you get extra pins to boot?  Some people could be opposite, you could bowl well at a house other people don't, go to a different house where you both get penalized AND don't match up.  It's completely subjective, just because the numbers could technically be crunched doesn't mean the idea itself is viable in the least. 

I'm not talking about handicapping a center. My thoughts are to rate bowlers against their peers by percentile. Then you could apply that ranking against whatever the handicap basis might be. The top bowlers generally filter to the top, no matter the conditions. The actual averages are irrelevant, it's how they performed against the field, not against the max score of 300.


For instance, a league with 100 bowlers, the top bowler in the league would be in the top 1%. There is one data point. If the bowler is in more than one league, you have more data points. The bowler's combined league average in relation to the entire house league average, another data point. Same bowler goes to a USBC sanctioned tournament, compare how the bowler does against the field, another data point. The bowler then goes to the USBC Open, compare his results against the tournament field, another data point. Once the bowler gets a number of data points, we can "throw-out" the anomalies of extreme highs and lows. The average of the remaining data points becomes their ranking %.

Each time you add a data point, the system becomes more accurate. Within a couple of years, you have a valid, accurate and easy to apply system for handicap. USBC could run this system side by side with the current one for say, two years, and then put it in place.

Handicap would be figured as follows: Using the standard 90% of 220 a 1% bowler would get zero pins. 90% of 220 = 198 * (bowler rank -1)% would be the number of sticks given.
A basic chart would look like this:
1% = 0
2% = 2 (round up)
3% = 4
4% = 6
5% = 8
...
20% = 38
...
50% = 97
etc.


We might need to adjust the reduction factor, and this will not stop the true shit-bags like Swindle from the other post, but at least it will take the house and lane pattern variances out of the equation.

Quote from: ITZPS on April 26, 2017, 03:17:29 PM

Then I defer to your expertise.  But ranking bowlers against their peers is different from adjusting handicap based on center ratings, and center ratings I feel WOULD be that complex.  Perhaps explain what you're thinking so I can understand?  I can't conceive of a way for someone to tell me how I'm going to bowl at a given center well enough that they can fairly handicap me.  On a golf course?  Sure, I can see that happening.  Bowling?  Not in the slightest, just can't see it.