Figuring progressive handicap

[oltymer]

OK, lets take a month of league bowling. You've established your handicap the first week with a handicap of 55. Thats what you'll use the second week but you also bowl lights out and bowl a 600 series. So you have to figure a new handicap for week 3, and so on and so forth. So, how do you compute these new figures?

[bowl1820]

OK, lets take a month of league bowling. You've established your handicap the first week with a handicap of 55. Thats what you'll use the second week but you also bowl lights out and bowl a 600 series. So you have to figure a new handicap for week 3, and so on and so forth. So, how do you compute these new figures?


You calculate your new average every week, Then take that average calculate your new handicap.

#GMGame 1Game 2Game 3SeriesTotalAve
389106125320320106
613713498369689114
9

You take your total pins (each weeks series totaled together) divide by the total number of games that gives you your new average. (example: Total 320 divided by 3 = 106 ave. then Total 689 divided by 6 = 114 ave etc. etc. Take that average and calculate your new handicap for the next week.

[boatman37]

Your league rules should state your handicap calculation. Our fall league is 90% of 230. So if I have a 180 average I take 230-180=50 then 50 x 90% = 45 pin handicap. And yes, it will change every week based on your average. And you may have a max handicap. In our league the max handicap anyone can have is 85.

[Ryster]

Every handicap league I have bowled on has been based on the total team average. 90% handicap based on team average. If the total averages of team A is 1000, and the total averages of team B is 750, then team B receives 225 pins per game handicap (250 difference x 90%). The handicap will constantly change each week as averages go up and down and also depending on who you bowl. Sometimes you receive handicap, sometimes you give handicap to the other team. I usually bowl scratch leagues in the fall, and only bowl handicap leagues in the summer.

Individual handicaps typically come in to play when you are bowling for head-to-head points as well as team points.

There has been a push here recently to go to 100% handicap on most leagues. That has been met with a lot of resistance, however it is considered more "fair" for the lower average teams to have any shot of winning. The USBC did one of their famous studies that showed that even at 100% handicap, the higher average team typically still wins but people just don't believe it and are really fighting it.

[boatman37]

Every handicap league I have bowled on has been based on the total team average. 90% handicap based on team average. If the total averages of team A is 1000, and the total averages of team B is 750, then team B receives 225 pins per game handicap (250 difference x 90%). The handicap will constantly change each week as averages go up and down and also depending on who you bowl. Sometimes you receive handicap, sometimes you give handicap to the other team. I usually bowl scratch leagues in the fall, and only bowl handicap leagues in the summer.

Individual handicaps typically come in to play when you are bowling for head-to-head points as well as team points.

There has been a push here recently to go to 100% handicap on most leagues. That has been met with a lot of resistance, however it is considered more "fair" for the lower average teams to have any shot of winning. The USBC did one of their famous studies that showed that even at 100% handicap, the higher average team typically still wins but people just don't believe it and are really fighting it.

Our summer league does team handicap but our fall league does individual but we don't do bowler vs bowler. But I did find out the other night that the Saturday night league does team handicap so I guess it depends on your individual league rules.

[J Anderson]

Every handicap league I have bowled on has been based on the total team average. 90% handicap based on team average. If the total averages of team A is 1000, and the total averages of team B is 750, then team B receives 225 pins per game handicap (250 difference x 90%). The handicap will constantly change each week as averages go up and down and also depending on who you bowl. Sometimes you receive handicap, sometimes you give handicap to the other team. I usually bowl scratch leagues in the fall, and only bowl handicap leagues in the summer.

Individual handicaps typically come in to play when you are bowling for head-to-head points as well as team points.

There has been a push here recently to go to 100% handicap on most leagues. That has been met with a lot of resistance, however it is considered more "fair" for the lower average teams to have any shot of winning. The USBC did one of their famous studies that showed that even at 100% handicap, the higher average team typically still wins but people just don't believe it and are really fighting it.

Back in the dark ages, in other words before automatic scoring, handicaps were figured by adding the individual averages. With computerized scoring the system usually adds individual handicaps to get the team handicap.

Also back in the day, in a league that was trophies only, no cash awards, there was a guy who would propose increasing the handicap from 85% to 90%, and every year the proposal was soundly defeated.

[classygranny]

Every handicap league I have bowled on has been based on the total team average. 90% handicap based on team average. If the total averages of team A is 1000, and the total averages of team B is 750, then team B receives 225 pins per game handicap (250 difference x 90%). The handicap will constantly change each week as averages go up and down and also depending on who you bowl. Sometimes you receive handicap, sometimes you give handicap to the other team. I usually bowl scratch leagues in the fall, and only bowl handicap leagues in the summer.

Individual handicaps typically come in to play when you are bowling for head-to-head points as well as team points.

There has been a push here recently to go to 100% handicap on most leagues. That has been met with a lot of resistance, however it is considered more "fair" for the lower average teams to have any shot of winning. The USBC did one of their famous studies that showed that even at 100% handicap, the higher average team typically still wins but people just don't believe it and are really fighting it.

Our morning league has been at 100% handicap for as long as I can remember...over 15 years? I don't really see any pattern of lower teams winning vs higher average teams, as it depends on who bowls the most over their average.

Even if a league uses team averages to calculate handicap, the individual's handicap is always figured in order to determine any awards, if individual awards given, as well as any local association awards, if any.

[J Anderson]

The players who benefit most from high percentage handicaps are newer bowlers, bowlers coming back from an injury, or bowlers who are taking the game more seriously than they used to. In other words if your game improves during the course of a season your chances of winning go up.

[Ryster]

Our morning league has been at 100% handicap for as long as I can remember...over 15 years? I don't really see any pattern of lower teams winning vs higher average teams, as it depends on who bowls the most over their average.

Even if a league uses team averages to calculate handicap, the individual's handicap is always figured in order to determine any awards, if individual awards given, as well as any local association awards, if any.

Or association provides awards based on individual average (most improved average, 150 pins over average, high average, etc.), but nothing that incorporates individual handicap of any kind.

[bltuneup]

Every handicap league I have bowled on has been based on the total team average. 90% handicap based on team average. If the total averages of team A is 1000, and the total averages of team B is 750, then team B receives 225 pins per game handicap (250 difference x 90%). The handicap will constantly change each week as averages go up and down and also depending on who you bowl. Sometimes you receive handicap, sometimes you give handicap to the other team. I usually bowl scratch leagues in the fall, and only bowl handicap leagues in the summer.

Individual handicaps typically come in to play when you are bowling for head-to-head points as well as team points.

There has been a push here recently to go to 100% handicap on most leagues. That has been met with a lot of resistance, however it is considered more "fair" for the lower average teams to have any shot of winning. The USBC did one of their famous studies that showed that even at 100% handicap, the higher average team typically still wins but people just don't believe it and are really fighting it.

I’ve spent the last decade of my life studying the issue of handicap bowling league fairness in general and the proper setting of league handicap formulas in particular. Part of my research included a visit with a USBC Senior Director at their Arlington, Texas, headquarters.

I challenged the director to explain that USBC study that found a 100% handicap still gave the better teams an advantage, and that also concluded the playing field wasn’t fully leveled until the handicap percentage reached 116%.

From a mathematical standpoint, these conclusions make no sense. The director did not even try to defend that absurd 116% claim. Nor did he argue with my contention that many (possibly most) leagues are patently unfair in that they do not give the poorest teams any realistic hope of success. This violates the very purpose of having handicap leagues.

While acknowledging that many leagues use handicap formulas that render their leagues unfair, the director made it clear that this was not a USBC problem, despite their sanctioning of those leagues. He merely said that is why the USBC recommends the use of a 100% handicap formula for all handicap leagues. But most leagues understandably want to give an advantage to higher-average bowlers and teams by setting a handicap percentage below 100%. It is unfortunate that any unfairness that may result is of no concern to the USBC.

The bottom line is that an appropriate handicap formula for a given league depends on many attributes of the league, including number of teams, length of season, use of split seasons, and, most importantly, the incoming averages of all the teams in the league. There is no single handicap percentage that works well for every league.

As a result of my research, I created software that will evaluate any league for fairness and allow easy determination of its optimal handicap formula. The program is called Bowling League Tuneup and can be found at www.bltuneup.com. It runs on Windows and is totally free. (Making money was not the goal of my research.) It can be used before the season starts to determine a fair handicap formula for a league. It can also be used during the season to record bowler scores in order to produce bowler performance sheets and league analyses that can help explain league outcomes, detect potential instances of cheating (sandbagging and dumping), and provide insights to assure future seasons of the league are set up properly.

[bowl1820]

HI bltuneup it's been awhile it looks like you updated the program. I downloaded it and will take a look, Do you have a test league file to try it out?

Note:
For those interested this is similar to a Sabermetrics type program. It's basically taking statistical data on player/team performance and using that to track trends and compute the probability of who will win and then allowing you to adjust the parameters to get the out come you want.

So you could then that information and use it to set up a league based on those new parameters.

[bltuneup]

HI bltuneup it's been awhile it looks like you updated the program. I downloaded it and will take a look, Do you have a test league file to try it out?

Note:
For those interested this is similar to a Sabermetrics type program. It's basically taking statistical data on player/team performance and using that to track trends and compute the probability of who will win and then allowing you to adjust the parameters to get the out come you want.

So you could then that information and use it to set up a league based on those new parameters.

Yes, version 3.0 was released in May (just in time for league bowling to have been rendered non-existent by COVID). This version refines just about all aspects of the program, and it adds the ability to import bowler scores from electronically stored recap sheets.

The documentation is extensive because it is a full examination of the art and science of setting up bowling leagues. The USBC director picked up the user manual, derisively tossed it on the table, and said, "Who's gonna read this?" That was very disappointing coming from someone whose job is to assure the success of league bowling! Anyway, that taught me to create the Quick Start as a short separate manual to get you going quickly.

As described in the Quick Start, a set of sample files is included with the installed app. A PDF file is included that describes each of the sample files.

Bowling League Tuneup requires that genuine Microsoft Excel (2010 or later) be installed on your computer. I think that may have been your stumbling block last time because you were using an Excel knockoff. I'm terribly sorry if that's still the case, but I had to write to the Microsoft API, which apparently isn’t fully supported by imitators.

[bowl1820]

Bowling League Tuneup requires that genuine Micro soft Excel (2010 or later) be installed on your computer. I think that may have been your stumbling block last time because you were using an Excel knockoff. I'm terribly sorry if that's still the case, but I had to write to the Microsoft API, which apparently isn’t fully supported by imitators.

Yeah I see it still uses Microsoft Excel and Yes I use Apache OpenOffice which is open source software. So no I can't use this prog. and try it out.

Your interface looks okay though and I found the sample files, Openoffice opened them easily

[bltuneup]

Yeah I see it still uses Microsoft Excel and Yes I use Apache OpenOffice which is open source software. So no I can't use this prog. and try it out.

Your interface looks okay though and I found the sample files, Openoffice opened them easily

Again, I'm sorry you can't try out the program. Use of Excel was a design decision that (a) saved me a lot of coding and (b) allows league files to be shared among people who don't have Bowling League Tuneup installed. Situations like yours, however, show a major downside of that decision.

My goal was to build a model that could calculate teams' probabilities of success in a scratch or handicap league – something I could find no evidence anyone had ever done before. Excel greatly eased the process of building that model, which I am happy to offer to the league bowling community. But only a reasonably high level of usage and/or interest in Bowling League Tuneup would sufficiently incentivize me to rewrite the system to remove the Excel dependency.

If you're a Windows user with genuine Microsoft Excel installed on your computer, I hope you'll give Bowling League Tuneup a try on your own leagues. I truly believe it will settle discussions like those in this thread about the proper handicap formula to use for a given league. Thanks!

Richard

[bltuneup]

Your league rules should state your handicap calculation. Our fall league is 90% of 230. So if I have a 180 average I take 230-180=50 then 50 x 90% = 45 pin handicap. And yes, it will change every week based on your average. And you may have a max handicap. In our league the max handicap anyone can have is 85.

I forgot to comment on boatman37’s statement that his league caps handicap at 85. Can anyone explain why on earth a league would ever set a maximum handicap? In a 90% league, poorer bowlers are at a disadvantage already. This is by design. Capping handicap at 85 puts crippling penalties on any team in the league that has bowlers with averages below 135 (i.e., with handicaps that would be over 85).

I did not put a “maximum handicap” feature into Bowling League Tuneup because it never dawned on me a league might implement such an irrational feature. So I just modified the code to see what effect this ridiculous rule would have on a hypothetical league.

Suppose you have a 2-team league with 4 bowlers per team, bowling 3 games per week for 30 weeks, with a handicap formula of 90% of 230. Team 1 has bowlers with averages of 175 – 175 – 175 – 175. Team 2 has bowlers with averages of 200 – 200 – 200 – 100. Both teams average 700 and they, logically enough, each have a 50% chance of finishing first in the 30-week season.

But if you put a cap of 85 on a bowler’s handicap, Bowling League Tuneup shows that Team 1 will finish the season in first place literally 100% of the time. The last bowler on team 2 should have had a handicap of 117; setting it to 85 delivers a 32-pin penalty to team 2 in each and every game, which obviously is a death blow to the team’s chances over the course of the season. Does anyone consider this a good thing?

Can anyone explain why a league would set a maximum bowler handicap – other than to tell poorer bowlers they are not welcome in the league? And does anyone know if (heaven forbid) this is a common feature in leagues that I should therefore implement in my league analysis application – if only to prove to the mathematically challenged that setting maximum handicaps should never be done?

[Ryster]

Handicap percentage is always a lively discussion on league meeting night. People have in their mind that they want handicap to be the lowest possible. You throw out the 100% handicap figure, and people threaten to walk out. The general manager of our bowling center mentioned the 116% figure one time and it was minor chaos until he talked people down from the ledge. What people forget is that even at 100%, like you said, if both teams bowl average the higher average team will win. There are those wild card situations where a 150 or 160 average bowler puts together a 200+ game, or two such bowlers on the same team do it in the same game, and then that just throws everything out of whack.

Capping handicap is interesting and I have personally never seen it. I have seen no-tap tournaments where score + handicap is capped at 300, but never capping handicap. Although, I know a ton of people around here would absolutely love it based on what I have seen.

[bltuneup]

Capping handicap is interesting and I have personally never seen it. I have seen no-tap tournaments where score + handicap is capped at 300, but never capping handicap. Although, I know a ton of people around here would absolutely love it based on what I have seen.

Really? After reading what I just wrote, you still believe capping handicap is interesting and a ton of people would love it? Given my example of what capping handicap does, please explain why anyone would ever consider this good. Do you think that people here despise bad bowlers and want to make certain they will fail miserably if they ever have the gall to join a league?

[boatman37]

I have no idea why they cap ours, it has been that way since I started 3 years ago. Have never heard any complains about it but you are right, anyone below about 136 average is severely penalized. My wife just started bowling this year and her average is 92 after 2 weeks. She is on our team and I know we are being penalized by about 40+ pins every game. We have a womens league that bowls the same night as us but not sure what their handicap rules are or if their is a maximum or not.

I don't like 100% handicap. 90% is fair. Not sure I get the 116% thing but even psychologically there is no negative to being a lower average bowler. But that is my mindset. I like rewards and something to strive for. If I have a 100% handicap then I feel there is no reason for me to get better. I need a goal to do my best and feel a 100% handicap would hurt me more than help me. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure others might feel different and that's fine.

[bltuneup]

I have no idea why they cap ours, it has been that way since I started 3 years ago. Have never heard any complains about it but you are right, anyone below about 136 average is severely penalized. My wife just started bowling this year and her average is 92 after 2 weeks. She is on our team and I know we are being penalized by about 40+ pins every game. We have a womens league that bowls the same night as us but not sure what their handicap rules are or if their is a maximum or not.

I don't like 100% handicap. 90% is fair. Not sure I get the 116% thing but even psychologically there is no negative to being a lower average bowler. But that is my mindset. I like rewards and something to strive for. If I have a 100% handicap then I feel there is no reason for me to get better. I need a goal to do my best and feel a 100% handicap would hurt me more than help me. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure others might feel different and that's fine.

I bet that somewhere in your league’s past, some hypercompetitive whiner(s) who bowled well but still fell short of first place complained that the bad bowlers were getting too much of an advantage from their huge handicaps, and the league responded by putting a cap on handicaps to quiet the whiner(s), despite having no understanding of the devastating effect of this change on the low-average bowlers and their teams. This is what happens when (a) bowlers don’t accept that they’re in a handicap league and (b) the league is run by people who have no idea what they’re doing. Which, I can tell you from my experience in researching league bowling, is a whole lot of people, if not most people, who run leagues.

Of course you’ve never heard any complaints. How would anyone prove from just a few seasons of bad results that their team has no realistic chance of success? So the unfair situation goes on for years because (a) no one wants to sound like they’re whining and (b) bowlers assume the league officials know what they’re doing. In my work league, the poorer teams, after many seasons of failure, eventually came to understand they had no chance of success in the league (even if they didn’t know why), so they dropped out and the league disbanded.

Creating a league which gives better teams an advantage while assuring that all teams have a realistic chance to finish in first place requires some non-trivial math, not opinions, educated guesses, or lively discussions on league meeting night. That’s why I wrote Bowling League Tuneup. And that’s why, in my humble opinion, literally every league out there should be using it!

[boatman37]

You are probably right about somebody whining. We have our share of those guys. I wouldn't say a lower average team can't compete. There are a few teams that are very low average that always finish near the bottom but for the most part it's fairly even. 2 of my teammates won the summer league championship one year (2 man teams). Their averages were about 200 for each of them but there are several in that league that average over 220 and a few over 230. But yeah the teams that average closer to 150 do seem to always finish near the bottom. Our winter league is split into 2 halves. The first 2 years I was here our team won one of the halves. Our team average is about 180 each. There are a couple of teams that have a team average over 210. I'll have to look at last years standings to see who won and how their averages compared to the top teams. Will try to remember to do that tomorrow. You have me thinking about this now...lol. At a quick glance after 2 weeks in this league the 1st place team is about mid-pack of 11 teams in terms of average. The 2nd place team is the top average. The 2nd highest average team is in 7th. But after only 2 weeks that isn't good data. Will look at last years and post it.

[Ryster]

Really? After reading what I just wrote, you still believe capping handicap is interesting and a ton of people would love it? Given my example of what capping handicap does, please explain why anyone would ever consider this good. Do you think that people here despise bad bowlers and want to make certain they will fail miserably if they ever have the gall to join a league?

I never said I agreed with capping handicap, I just know a lot of people in our bowling center that are anti-handicap and would totally get behind capping handicap. I think a more effective solution is to cap the team average from the beginning to prevent "stacked" teams. For example, on a social 4-person team league there could be a team cap of 825. It doesn't totally solve the problem but it would prevent four 215 average bowlers from coming in on the same team and dominating the league from the outset. Obviously, the cap can be adjusted based on the typical participants of the league. Higher average bowlers are more likely to bowl their average (or higher) consistently. Lower average bowlers are not as likely to bowl way over their average on a consistent basis, which makes it tough for them to overcome stacked teams.

There are also a lot of bowlers that freely admit to keeping their averages down so they receive handicap. They feel it is the only way they can compete on handicap leagues against lower average teams. For the first few weeks, they bowl way below their ability. They get a strong start to the season with 9-12 wins, and then "manage" their average as the season progresses. Is it an ethical strategy? Well, no. But unfortunately it is being done and with regularity.

Many leagues in our center are now requiring handicap for the first 3 weeks of league to be based off of your highest house average, or highest sanctioned average if you do not have a house average. This is to discourage bowlers from keeping scores low at the beginning. Then after 9 games, handicap is based on the average the bowler has established at that point in that league. It doesn't necessarily discourage "average management", but it is a valiant attempt.

I prefer scratch leagues, just because the handicap issue is kind of frustrating. I also find I bowl better on scratch leagues as it forces a bowler to compete at a higher level since it is truly score vs. score and there is no handicap to rely on to eek out a win. You either win or you don't.

[boatman37]

I never said I agreed with capping handicap, I just know a lot of people in our bowling center that are anti-handicap and would totally get behind capping handicap. I think a more effective solution is to cap the team average from the beginning to prevent "stacked" teams. For example, on a social 4-person team league there could be a team cap of 825. It doesn't totally solve the problem but it would prevent four 215 average bowlers from coming in on the same team and dominating the league from the outset. Obviously, the cap can be adjusted based on the typical participants of the league. Higher average bowlers are more likely to bowl their average (or higher) consistently. Lower average bowlers are not as likely to bowl way over their average on a consistent basis, which makes it tough for them to overcome stacked teams.

There are also a lot of bowlers that freely admit to keeping their averages down so they receive handicap. They feel it is the only way they can compete on handicap leagues against lower average teams. For the first few weeks, they bowl way below their ability. They get a strong start to the season with 9-12 wins, and then "manage" their average as the season progresses. Is it an ethical strategy? Well, no. But unfortunately it is being done and with regularity.

Many leagues in our center are now requiring handicap for the first 3 weeks of league to be based off of your highest house average, or highest sanctioned average if you do not have a house average. This is to discourage bowlers from keeping scores low at the beginning. Then after 9 games, handicap is based on the average the bowler has established at that point in that league. It doesn't necessarily discourage "average management", but it is a valiant attempt.

I prefer scratch leagues, just because the handicap issue is kind of frustrating. I also find I bowl better on scratch leagues as it forces a bowler to compete at a higher level since it is truly score vs. score and there is no handicap to rely on to eek out a win. You either win or you don't.

Our league uses the highest average from the previous season for the first 3 weeks also. I think I like the idea of limiting a team average. We have a couple of teams that are stacked. Not that we can't beat them we just know we have to bowl our best against them.

[boatman37]

Last year in our fall league the top average team had a combined team average of 1059 (5 man teams). 2nd highest was 1037. 3rd was 1043. After that there is a decent gap to 4th at 976. Our team was 935 and we were 5th highest of 16 teams.
The highest average team was 9th place of the 16 teams, 2nd highest was 11th place, 3rd highest was 16th of 16, 4th highest was 15th of 16, and we were 12th of 16. The 1st and 2nd place teams were roughly about 10th or so highest averages. These are all taken from the 3/10 sheets, the last day before we shut down for COVID.

Didn't seem too bad. Lower average teams are still competitive in our league.

[Ryster]

In our center's largest handicap league, just prior to shutdown, there were 30 teams broken out in to four divisions. Div 1 Team with the 2nd highest team average was leading Div 1. Div 2 team with highest team average was leading Div 2, and had already won their Division in the first half of the season. Division 3 team with the highest team average was leading Div 3. Div 4 team with the 3rd highest average was leading Div 4.

[boatman37]

Here is a screenshot that shows the standings and the total scratch pins and total handicap.

The top average team is Team FEI, then Sims Lanes, then Mikes Pro Shop, then Hill House, then my team Sims Bar. You can get a good idea of who the better teams are by looking at the total scratch pins and then see what place they are in.

EDIT: just realized that total wins are in there too so you can see where each team stood for the whole season. Looks like the team with the most wins at that point was Sims Lanes who was the 2nd highest average. The 2nd most wins was Marshall who has a pretty low average. 3rd was a tie between 2 lower average teams also.

https://i.postimg.cc/TPmHLtZn/3-10-standings.png (https://postimages.org/)

[J Anderson]

Really? After reading what I just wrote, you still believe capping handicap is interesting and a ton of people would love it? Given my example of what capping handicap does, please explain why anyone would ever consider this good. Do you think that people here despise bad bowlers and want to make certain they will fail miserably if they ever have the gall to join a league?

There are people, probably not too many in this forum, who do despise unskilled bowlers. A while back I came across an ABC rule book from the late sixties. One of the suggestions was that leagues should be formed of bowlers with similar skill levels. For example, bowlers with averages less than 140 would be in a beginners leagues, 140 - 180 might be the next league and the top league might be 180 and up. I have never seen leagues set up like this. There just don't seem to be enough people interested in league bowling to do this. What happens is that you have low level bowlers thrown into the mix with bowlers who can average quite high on the typical house shot. Cap or no cap, the high average bowlers freak out when they see that they're spotting someone 80 pins, or that their team is spotting the other team 150. If a league is set up with a suitable Team Average cap a cap on the handicap is not necessary.

Where I can see the point of a cap on handicap would be an open tournament. Say a new bowler enters with a 120 average over the first 7 weeks of the season. He or she is a newbie who was shooting 80s and 90s the first couple weeks but is now shooting 130s and 140s fairly often. Our local association tournament uses 100% based on 240. If our newbie has a real good day and flirts with 200 they might very well walk off with the title.

The real questions are; What is fair? And do we really want fair?

[boatman37]

Just got home from league. I pre-bowled because I was supposed to be out of town so end up being a cheerleader tonight. We were spotted 62 pins a game tonight. The other team isn't a great team, probably mid-pack. First game we were about 50 over our average and lost by 44. Their one bowler had a 198 average and took a 300 into the 10th and opened for a 267. Game 2 we won by 5 and were about 40 over our average. Game 3 we lost by about 65 but we were below our average. I was 35 below my average so it was a tough game.

What was frustrating was we were over our average by quite a bit the first 2 games but still lost the first game and barely won the 2nd. What was odd was we were about 50 over our average and the other team only about 40 over their average in game 1 but we still lost by over 40. I think the reason is we are still using last years averages so it made it harder.

[ALazySavage]

A few comments from the posts:

(A) You have to be really careful about capping averages for a team - I am not against the concept and bowled in a capped league but what ended up happening is that teams were built around that cap number and then in subsequent years some of the more influential teams were able to get this moved up. What then occurred was a mad dash to restructure teams to better align with this average cap and pushed out the equivalent of 4 teams of bowlers in the first run and then ultimately killed the league in three (it was a 40 team full league with a waiting list at the start of this).

(B) The average % is a direct result of people getting caught up with adding pins to an already high score. In most handicap leagues I have bowled in my team has been the high average team in the league - this is just a function of who my friends are and the day we are all available, not a goal to stack a team. In almost all situations I have been fighting to increase the average percentage up to 100% and in other situations have had to try and fight to raise the score that handicaps are based off of. Every time I have made this argument (and I have gone as far as proving out the math on dry erase boards) the response is immediately "you just want to have handicap to make it easier for you to win". It really is a simple concept when you look at the numbers but people are stuck on the fear of high average bowler getting handicap.

(C) The only place the 100% vs. 85% argument really works in my opinion is when considering the team that has multiple bowlers who have never bowled before. This would be someone who comes into the league, establishes at 80 and then starts shooting 120 consistently. Calculating off of 220, this bowler would have either 140 or 119 handicap. Taking two bowlers at the 100% (handicapped and scratch) - the scratch bowlers in the 100% have to shoot 260 or 239 in the 85%. The two observations, is first a 239 for a 220 bowler is not anything spectacular while the handicapped bowler would be shooting 50% over average - secondly, if the sacrifice is I lose a game to make it more enjoyable for the newer bowler that is not a problem (look at the league environment Pre-COVID...it wasn't great, we need more bowlers). Also, if you are complaining due to the potential earnings you miss out on in a mom and pops league then you should either join a league that better matches your financial goals or find something else to gamble your money.

[Aslan]

There are people, probably not too many in this forum, who do despise unskilled bowlers. A while back I came across an ABC rule book from the late sixties. One of the suggestions was that leagues should be formed of bowlers with similar skill levels. For example, bowlers with averages less than 140 would be in a beginners leagues, 140 - 180 might be the next league and the top league might be 180 and up. I have never seen leagues set up like this. There just don't seem to be enough people interested in league bowling to do this. What happens is that you have low level bowlers thrown into the mix with bowlers who can average quite high on the typical house shot. Cap or no cap, the high average bowlers freak out when they see that they're spotting someone 80 pins, or that their team is spotting the other team 150. If a league is set up with a suitable Team Average cap a cap on the handicap is not necessary.

Where I can see the point of a cap on handicap would be an open tournament. Say a new bowler enters with a 120 average over the first 7 weeks of the season. He or she is a newbie who was shooting 80s and 90s the first couple weeks but is now shooting 130s and 140s fairly often. Our local association tournament uses 100% based on 240. If our newbie has a real good day and flirts with 200 they might very well walk off with the title.

The real questions are; What is fair? And do we really want fair?

I have been a long-time proponent of the USBC mandating this type of league format.

NOTE: I have also been the ONLY person who has been a proponent of this.

The reason is quite simple. Handicap is HORRIBLE and it really ruins the fun of sports wherever it is used. Thats why its not used in any professional sports. It's really only used in golf and bowling...two sports that have trouble fielding large enough leagues without it.

IF we were to get rid of handicap....if the USBC were to MANDATE it...it would look something like this:

- ALL USBC sanctioned leagues would be scratch.

Division A: 191 and above
Division B: 176-190
Division C: 150-175
Division D: 0-149

- Each division would bowl on harder patterns. Division D would bowl on the easiest USBC pattern (although, still a pattern that is tougher than a THS shot). Division B would bowl on the toughest USBC pattern. Division A would bowl on challenge or sport patterns and their averages would be adjusted accordingly.

- For logistics reasons (carpooling), a person from one division lower MAY join one division higher...but there is no handicap (so, they would be a competitive liability). However, no player may join a division 2 levels higher and no player may join a division lower.

- A player is moved up/down divisions after a 3-year composite USBC average shows their average has changed. In other words, a lucky season doesn't bump you up a division and a bad season (or sandbagging season) doesn't bump you down.

- Every USBC sanctioned center must offer at least enough leagues to accommodate one league per division that would take up the entire center's lanes on one night.

- Every PBA bowler must bowl in at least one Division A USBC sanctioned league to remain eligible to bowl PBA events.

The advantage to this system, once implemented, is that everyone is bowling against people that bowl like they do. They are all learning together. It's an opportunity for people to "just have fun" without going up against serious bowlers that get annoyed every time someone makes a noise. It also allows serious bowlers to watch other serious bowlers and work on skills like reading other bowlers shots and ball reactions...rather than watch some 99 average girl throw a house ball up the middle of the lane and do a funky chicken dance because she just beat her previous high score of 123. And guess what? NO SANDBAGGING! All the 200 average whiners that claim they only lose because everyone sandbags...well, can't sandbag in a scratch league...so go bowl and shut up.

And it offers a lot of possibilities. D Divisions could offer beginner clinics to interested bowlers to help them get to that next level (for bowlers that want to do that). Coaches could target B and C divisions where there are obviously bowlers who aren't just "messing around" and probably would like to eventually get to that A Division. And it mandates patterns...it brings scoring down...but in a way that makes sense. Better bowlers should be challenging themselves. That doesn't mean you make weekend warriors bowl on a sport pattern. Divisions allow you to separate those folks out.

Will this ever happen? Never...in a million, zillion years...ever.

[J Anderson]

I have been a long-time proponent of the USBC mandating this type of league format.

NOTE: I have also been the ONLY person who has been a proponent of this.

The reason is quite simple. Handicap is HORRIBLE and it really ruins the fun of sports wherever it is used. Thats why its not used in any professional sports. It's really only used in golf and bowling...two sports that have trouble fielding large enough leagues without it.

IF we were to get rid of handicap....if the USBC were to MANDATE it...it would look something like this:

- ALL USBC sanctioned leagues would be scratch.

Division A: 191 and above
Division B: 176-190
Division C: 150-175
Division D: 0-149

- Each division would bowl on harder patterns. Division D would bowl on the easiest USBC pattern (although, still a pattern that is tougher than a THS shot). Division B would bowl on the toughest USBC pattern. Division A would bowl on challenge or sport patterns and their averages would be adjusted accordingly.

- For logistics reasons (carpooling), a person from one division lower MAY join one division higher...but there is no handicap (so, they would be a competitive liability). However, no player may join a division 2 levels higher and no player may join a division lower.

- A player is moved up/down divisions after a 3-year composite USBC average shows their average has changed. In other words, a lucky season doesn't bump you up a division and a bad season (or sandbagging season) doesn't bump you down.

- Every USBC sanctioned center must offer at least enough leagues to accommodate one league per division that would take up the entire center's lanes on one night.

- Every PBA bowler must bowl in at least one Division A USBC sanctioned league to remain eligible to bowl PBA events.

The advantage to this system, once implemented, is that everyone is bowling against people that bowl like they do. They are all learning together. It's an opportunity for people to "just have fun" without going up against serious bowlers that get annoyed every time someone makes a noise. It also allows serious bowlers to watch other serious bowlers and work on skills like reading other bowlers shots and ball reactions...rather than watch some 99 average girl throw a house ball up the middle of the lane and do a funky chicken dance because she just beat her previous high score of 123. And guess what? NO SANDBAGGING! All the 200 average whiners that claim they only lose because everyone sandbags...well, can't sandbag in a scratch league...so go bowl and shut up.

And it offers a lot of possibilities. D Divisions could offer beginner clinics to interested bowlers to help them get to that next level (for bowlers that want to do that). Coaches could target B and C divisions where there are obviously bowlers who aren't just "messing around" and probably would like to eventually get to that A Division. And it mandates patterns...it brings scoring down...but in a way that makes sense. Better bowlers should be challenging themselves. That doesn't mean you make weekend warriors bowl on a sport pattern. Divisions allow you to separate those folks out.

Will this ever happen? Never...in a million, zillion years...ever.

I agree that this isn't very likely, but I do like your idea. The only exception is that I would let divisions overlap a bit. D would stay the same. C would run from 140-180. B would cover 170-205, and A would be 195 and up.

[boatman37]

I like the general idea but wonder about A division. We have five guys in our league that average over 220 and one over 230. Our PSO rolled a 715 last night. His average is 227.
The worst of those guys last night was a 663. I'm about a 190 bowler and have never bowled a 663. My high is about a 657 or so. I do see that you specified different patterns. I enjoy different patterns but I wouldn't be averaging 190 on a harder pattern. It 'may' work and I'd like to see a test of it but think everyone might lose 20 or so pins off their average and let's face it, the top average guys will likely figure out the harder patterns before the lower average guys, which will further separate the groups. Just my thoughts but I would love to see a test of it to see how it plays out.

[bowl1820]

Okay:
In regards to handicap, As Capt Archer said in Star Trek Enterprise (Cease Fire episode): "someone once defined a compromise as a solution that neither side is happy with."

There is no truly fair handicap, Just the one everyone agrees to compromise on.

Going with ALL USBC sanctioned leagues being scratch. personally I wouldn't mind. But most likely sanctioned leagues would soon disappear as bowlers left for un-sanctioned leagues.

The lower averages would leave first for the un-sanctioned handicap leagues, which would then grow in size and prize money. The scratch bowlers left in the sanctioned leagues would soon follow, Because their leagues are now shrinking and bleeding money.

This is what happened to the sanctioned scratch leagues that we use to have in the past, The money dried up and the handicap leagues were huge with a lot prize money, so the scratch bowlers joined the handicap leagues figuring easy wins. Then the complaints about handicap began and are still on going.

Having divisions is okay in tournaments, But I doubt very much ever work for all leagues. Plus requiring every USBC sanctioned center to offer at least enough leagues to accommodate one league per division that would take up the entire center's lanes on one night That would never happen.

Also divisions would suffer basically the same problem as scratch and handicap leagues did. You would most likely have one division that was bigger than the rest, This would most likely be the division with the ave. joe bowler middle of the road averages.

The high average bowlers would want to be in that league or stay in that league because it would have all the money. Average management would then become rampant. Of course you would also be dividing up families and friends that want to bowl together.

[boatman37]

Well just for the heck of it and the fact I already had our standings sheets up I decided to see how many we would have in each division. Granted the league is smaller than last year due to everything going on but I will also check last years for comparison.

Current league:
Division A (191 and up): 28
Division B (176-190): 12
Division C (150-175): 14
Division D (0-149): 4

Last season:
Division A (191 and up): 56
Division B (176-190): 25
Division C (150-175): 32
Division D (0-149): 5

Yeah, I'm bored....lol

[ALazySavage]

While I feel that the divisions based leagues would be an interesting concept, it would essentially kill league bowling. This essentially exists in a smaller scale of handicap vs. scratch leagues. Team composition would be a nightmare and you are essentially penalizing people for increasing their average by telling them good job, now you cannot bowl with your friends anymore because they are not at your level. I have seen high level leagues die because of capping and people not being able to bowl with their friends, and these are the people most committed to the game. The issue is here (on the site) we are talking with the highest level of enjoyment and commitment to the game - grab a standing sheet and see how many teams would survive such a breakdown - most spouses would not be allowed to bowl with each other, many friends are not at the same level, and lastly the way many of these leagues maintain is someone has a spot on their team and brings in a friend who hasn't bowled before - that is gone as well. Looking back at some of my leagues recently, if we tier those averages many of those people I flat out do not want to spend 36 weeks with - I have done this in the past and it sucks if you don't like your team.

[bowl1820]

I have seen high level leagues die because of capping and people not being able to bowl with their friends, and these are the people most committed to the game.

I've seen this happen also, (A example here one time) A league tried to start for the higher average bowlers and it set a low team Ave. cap. cause they didn't want to have loaded up teams.

Then what happened was you had friends that wanted to bowl together, they had high averages. So you wound up with several teams trying to find one low average bowler so they could meet the cap. Which was a problem low average bowlers usually didn't want to bowl on a high average league so it was really hard finding someone if at all.

So the only other options were split up the teams, (of course they didn't want to do that they wanted to bowl together) or quit the league.

The league suggested raising the cap to open it to more people, but the cap was raised so much to get people in there was really no point in having the cap in the first place.

[bltuneup]

I think most people join bowling leagues for the social aspect of it. It’s a fun way to spend time with friends one night a week, which I think has always accounted for a huge part of the success of league bowling as a leisure activity.

We all know that putting casual bowlers with wildly varying skill levels into scratch leagues will almost always result in massively uncompetitive leagues that will quickly drive away the poorer teams. And you guys have accurately summarized the problems with creating leagues with tiers for different skill levels or (to a lesser degree) putting caps on team averages, namely that these measures may prevent friends from bowling together, which will similarly drive away a large number of potential league bowlers.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this all makes handicap leagues the worst type of league there is…except for all the other types that have been tried. The key to making a handicap league fair – which I define as a league which gives the better teams higher chances of success, while assuring that even the poorest team has a mathematically realistic chance of success – is to choose the right handicap formula.

This is the exact problem I’ve spent years working on. The problem boils down to choosing the right handicap formula for the league’s specific mix of teams and league attributes. So how do you do that? You do it with mathematics.

The math is easy if you set the handicap percentage to 100%. In a 10-team league with a 100% handicap, we know that each team enters the season with a 10% chance of finishing in first place, regardless of league attributes or team averages. But since this handicap percentage fails to reward bowlers for getting better, such leagues are generally not popular.

We know that as you lower the handicap percentage, the better teams’ chances rise above 10% and the poorer teams’ chances sink below 10%. But by how much? There’s never been a way to put exact numbers to the teams’ chances as you change the handicap percentage. This is exactly what my software, Bowling League Tuneup, does.

Perhaps a quick example is in order. Suppose a league has 10 teams with 4 bowlers per team bowling 3 games per week, with 1 point earned for each game win and an additional point awarded for winning total pins over all 3 games. The league lasts 24 weeks with 2 position weeks. The entering team averages are as follows:

506 723 682 653 677 529 651 597 661 564

With a handicap formula of 90% of 230, the teams’ chances of finishing in first place are:

0.2 33.0 17.5 10.3 16.1 0.6 10.3 3.2 12.3 1.6

This means that if this league bowled together for 100 seasons, team 2 could expect to finish first in 33 of those seasons. Meanwhile, team 1 could expect to finish first about 0.2% of the time, or once every 500 seasons. This doesn’t come close to meeting my criteria for fairness. (Note that these numbers total over 100% because a tie for first awards first place to both teams.)

With a handicap formula of 95% of 230, the chances change to this:

2.5 21.8 15.4 11.8 15.2 3.3 11.5 6.9 12.4 5.2

This is certainly better and might be chosen as a fair handicap formula. But some leagues might still consider it unfair that for every first place finish by team 1, team 2 could expect almost 9 first place finishes. If this disparity is still considered too great, here are the numbers with a handicap formula of 97% of 230:

4.8 16.8 13.9 11.5 13.3 5.6 11.6 8.6 12.4 7.2

Other ways to alter teams’ chances would be to change the season length, go to a split season, or even use one handicap formula to start the season and another to end it. Bowling League Tuneup can determine the effects of any changes to a league’s attributes.

There is no other tool I know of that can make these computations! There’s much more to it than this, but Bowling League Tuneup is essentially a calculator that can model any bowling league and assess its fairness. Regardless of how a league is set up, bowlers entering a league can then be assured their league has been “tuned up” to reward better teams and assure poorer teams that they can succeed with good performances relative to their abilities.

Without this tool, no one has any idea about the real chances of a league’s teams. That is unfair to bowlers who enter a handicap league with the potentially false promise that all teams have a realistic chance to succeed. And as bowlers come to realize their chances of success are slim to none, they will cease being league bowlers.

Bowling League Tuneup also has tools that help explain actual league outcomes by measuring bowler performance relative to established ability (something else no other tool does), which in turn provides invaluable information for detecting potential instances of sandbagging and dumping (the biggest problems of handicap leagues, as we all know).

I’m sorry for this ridiculously long post. The bottom line is that I believe that handicap leagues still offer the best way to attract people to league bowling, and I believe that Bowling League Tuneup is an essential tool to ensure the success of handicap league bowling.

[Ryster]

Does the software account for the deviations that occur in the individual bowlers scores? For example, the 150 average bowlers that regularly put together 180-190 games? These are the bowlers that totally throw off handicapping, especially when the higher average team is struggling.

It is very rare for bowlers to always bowl their average each and every game of a 3 game series. Building a model that assumes bowlers bowling their average each game is potentially discounting the effect of large deviations in bowlers scores.

[boatman37]

Something we did try last year summer league but it didn't go over real well. If a team won by 100 pins they got 2 bonus points and if they won by 50 they got 1 bonus point. One issue was it was very difficult to track and many mistakes were made. Secondly the better teams earned these bonus points far more often than the lower average teams.

[bowl1820]

Something we did try last year summer league but it didn't go over real well. If a team won by 100 pins they got 2 bonus points and if they won by 50 they got 1 bonus point. One issue was it was very difficult to track and many mistakes were made. Secondly the better teams earned these bonus points far more often than the lower average teams.

Yes that wouldn't really have been good for the lower ave. teams. They would have a harder time making that 50-100 pin difference.

If they wanted to try something different, they should have just used a "Petersen Point System" (That's where you get 1 point for every "Block" of 25, 50 or 100 pins of total scratch or handicap scores. The points are then calculated by taking the player's or team's total scores (scratch or handicap) and dividing it by the block size.)

[bltuneup]

Does the software account for the deviations that occur in the individual bowlers scores? For example, the 150 average bowlers that regularly put together 180-190 games? These are the bowlers that totally throw off handicapping, especially when the higher average team is struggling.

It is very rare for bowlers to always bowl their average each and every game of a 3 game series. Building a model that assumes bowlers bowling their average each game is potentially discounting the effect of large deviations in bowlers scores.

Yes, the software accounts for the deviations, small and large, from average that every bowler experiences over the course of a season. And no, these deviations do not “throw off handicapping.” Everyone has deviations in their scores, and if the bowlers with 150 averages regularly bowl games in the 180-190 range, that surely means they also regularly bowl games in the 110-120 range.

A model where a 150 bowler bowls a 150 game every game of the season not only would have no resemblance to reality, it would also produce totally incorrect results. Such a model would tell you, for instance, that in a best-of-9-game scratch series, a bowler who ends up averaging 150 would always lose the series to a bowler who ends up averaging 155. In fact, that model would tell you the 155 bowler would win literally every game by the score of 155-150. That’s obviously nuts.

The reality is that you could expect the bowler averaging 150 to win the 9-game series against the bowler averaging 155 about 37% of the time. How did I get this answer? I just ran the simulation in Bowling League Tuneup.

It is true that some bowlers are less consistent in their scoring than other bowlers. In Bowling League Tuneup’s lingo, the 150-average bowlers who regularly toss games in the 180s would be called high-volatility bowlers. Volatility is one of three measures of bowler performance which are used to characterize each bowler’s performance. The 37% figure above becomes almost 40% if both bowlers in the series have high volatility (wildly inconsistent scores), and it goes below 35% if both have low volatility (rock-solid consistency).