The following is an unedited Facebook exchange between area bowler/pro shop operator Scott Long and myself ...

SCOTT: Why are we now giving press, in praising sandbags sir??

ME: I don't understand your question. When have I "praised" or lauded sandbagging?

SCOTT: On Wednesday night, we had a couple of teams decide to sandbag ridiculously. The worst being Delores Meyers team. The lead off bowler shoots 405 with a couple of 120 gms while having a 205 year book...he then proceeds to beat his yearbook average the next 2 weeks(both well over 200 pins total more than the 1st night). Also, besides him setting 67 pins below his yearbook, Delores set 47 pins below hers and her husband set 41 pins below his. Then I see in your article, that you are bragging about her set on Wednesday night where she beat me 707-702 but I was spotting her a whopping 48 pins per game and even adding salt to the wounds by congratulating her for sandbagging the first 2 weeks of the season after averaging 210 during the winter in the same building.

Off of her teams first week....their team set unbreakable records with 467 pins more the 2nd week and then bowled about another 150 pins more than the 2nd week last week or 617 pins total more than week 1's sandbagging.

just in case, the 67, 47, and 41 unders are per game not series.

ME: I see what you are saying, but how was I to determine that from the standings sheets? Of course, I noticed Dolores' low scores in the two previous weeks, but every bowler has off-weeks, and I hardly consider her a sandbagger. As for the other low scores that you mentioned, I rarely pay much attention to low scores (because I'm generally looking for high scores). At any rate, I certainly didn't attempt to promote sandbagging in any way, but thanks for your comments.

(1)  No you didn't praise sandbagging, just posted a good score.

(2)  It's hard to know if it was sandbagging without being there to see what actually happened.  The scores are somewhat believable, with a 162 avg the 1st week and 180 the second, but still a solid 35 pins under the previous 2 years averages. If I had to bowl a known 210 average bowler in week 3, and that person showed up with a 171, I would be very suspicious... especially if that person proceeding to post a 700.  I would definitely keep an eye on any suspected baggers, but it is next to impossible to prove regardless.  I've said this a thousand times, if there is a way to game the system to gain an advantage, some jack-wagon is going to do it.

(3)  Your column was fine.  It's not like you review tape on the previous weeks scores to verify everything is legit before writing them up.  Just looking at the score sheets.

Depends on how long the summer league runs. Do we know they lost? You don't have to lose if you're dumping. Have you ever seen dumping in person? I have. Their teams haven't always suffered huge losses. It depends on what the level of competition they were facing and if the others on the team could pick up the slack. Then during a short season they could gain an advantage.

Now, some questions for forum members:

(1) Do you agree with Scott Long's original assumption that my column "praised" sandbagging?

(2) Do you believe that what Scott is claiming constitutes deliberate sandbagging?

(3) Do you believe that my column contained any inappropriate mention of Dolores Meyers' scores? And if so, how do you feel that her scores should have been reported?

1. I can see how he might have  thought it was praising a sandbagger but if you had no evidence other than the numbers you reported, then how could you know she was sandbagging. See possibly reasons in reply #2.

2. Unless you know the person and their abilities, it can be hard to say that they were sandbagging. The odds of a 200+ average bowler throwing 2 consecutive weeks of 450s on a house pattern is astronomically low, UNLESS they were bowling with a broken leg or a broken hand. Seeing as how she shot 480 and then 540, She could easily have just been adjusting to new oil patterns and/or new balls, or been testing a new release. I would say her scores, IN AND OF THEMSELVES, are not evidence of sandbagging.

3. I think you reported her scores totally properly.

If Scott Long had some evidence to the contrary, he should have reported it to you. I think he was just unhappy over being beaten, by someone who he thought should not have beaten him. It's a bitter pill we all have to swallow every once in a while.

Can a 205 avg bowler have a bad week and avg 160. Yes.  However, the couple of 120 games to get the 480 tells me that something is up. You reported based on the information available which is fine. 

Can a league adopt a rule like this?

How about a bowler's previous year's average is their base handicap for the current year.  A bowler ends with a 204 average for the previous year. So in a handicap league set at 100% of 220, that bowler receives a handicap of 16. No matter how far this bowler goes under their average in the current year they cannot receive more than that handicap base. Of course if their average goes up, their handicap descreases, but it never increases beyond the established base.

An exception to the rule. If someone sustains an injury, then you might put it to a captain's vote to have a handicap increased.

You could be a little forgiving maybe give the bowler and additional 10. So in my example the bowler's average to drop to 194, but anything less is only going to get 26 handicap.

Now teams and bowlers who sandbag would have to tank whole seasons to get a clear advantage. Obviously that could easily be shown in standing sheets from year to year.

To add: You would still keep scores for the current year. Average would be determined by the current years score.

Another idea: Could a league adopt another rule base on how much you current year's average compared to last year. The rule would be a person could only drop 10. So if a person drops 20 pins in the current year, their average used to establish a base handicap for the next year would be 10 pins higher.

Now you curving them down. Reach a level. It's going to take several years to get that average down 50 pins lower.