Establishing an average over multiple weeks

[Frank Goebel]

This stems in part from a discussion in the BLS 2010 forum where a league uses, for bowlers without an established average, their first nine games where they bowl as a pacer and the team uses the league vacancy score in the interim.

This is a bit of a norm in my area and over the years, I've seen it used on multiple leagues in multiple associations. This is applied as much in serious match play and fun leagues alike.

The practical use is somewhat apparent in my match point league, where we line up low to high average. This league only recognizes the previous season, so a bowler taking a year off is treated the same as one new to organized play. If we had to use the first night's scores, do we line up where we think the new bowler would initially fall? Always in leadoff? Wherever the team wants? And, it's appropriate to use nine games soan average once established is more reperesentative and stable, not a fluke that's neither unusually high nor low.

I could propose a use of a bowler's first night scores, but it would meet with heavy resistance (read: yelling). It'd be highly appropriate for a fun league, anyway.

[Patrick Lajko]

If you bowl as a pacer for 9 games (i.e;nothing conts) what reason doyou have to do anything but throw the ball in the butter? When your scores don't count towards anything - hello sandbagging!

All leagues here start your average like the norm - after the first 3 games then actual average based on games bowle after that. An whatever you do - it does count.

[Frank Goebel]

The point is well taken. However, and this is just an observation based on practice - I've seen the establishing bowlers in my league doing pretty well, even more so this season than in the past. One has a nine-game average of 218; in '05 when he had to leave for a work injury his highest prior to that was 196. The others are doing fairly well compared to what they've bowled in the past; one has been out of play for many years so his scores are low and I don't see his ability making a quick comeback.

Here's my theory, and it's just a theory: Three weeks may make it more difficult to sandbag because under a notion that it'd be more obvious over the longer timeframe. But even more significant is that they're bowling with their team while establishing - encouraging their teams to do well, point-wise (without their direct help) so they bowl well as part of the team. It's been said that an individual bowling in a more competitive, scoring league will do better there than in a fun, low-average non-scoring league even if the same pattern is out. It could also be due to the low vacancy score (120); the bowlers don't want to be associated with something so low, so they bowl well to prove it. You be the judge.

Now, I did run into a challenge from an out-of-state bowler (first year in our league), but his concern had nothing to do with sandbagging. With our new low vacancy score of 120, it's displaying a handicap of 99 (90% to 230, our instance) and he was worried that the establishing bowler would get a three-game handicap of 297 added to a scratch series of 687 (a handicap series of 984) and thought that was unfair. Last season's high handicap series was 891. I'm guessing he's not as familiar with the bowlers establishing as we do (perhaps his experience is akin to what you've illustrated), but I reassured him that such a handicap wouldn't be applied to those scores. We'd lowered our vacancy score from 175 to 120, so that augmented any concern.

I would like to hear some thoughts from others, if they would.

[Larry Zaideman]

In are part of country we do as Patrick establish after 3 games if new.
Talk about other night to other Secretaries and league bowlers, all feel it was more a disadvantage in this rule then any advantage they can see.
As for a match point league yes the advantage goes to a new bowler in week 1, but it's not a guarantee win.
I believe using a vacancy does lead to more sandbagging, is why I ask our league to change to a blind -20 pins there still a penalty for not having a full team but not a easy night for opponent bowler.

[Frank Goebel]

There continues a discussion in the BLS forum on how to apply this (or a similar) rule to BLS itself. I'm hoping to keep this thread to simply the rule discussion (there will be a little how-to present).

As promised, here is the rule as worded in my by-laws (the only change is the blind score used was 175 until this season):


8. Average.
An individual who has bowled in this League in the previous season will use his previous year’s average for the first nine (9) games of bowling.
A new bowler entering the League will use his highest average from the previous year which appears in the Albany Bowling Association or any sanctioned bowling association, for the first nine (9) games. This average will be verified by the Secretary.
A new bowler entering the League without an established average as outlined above will bowl nine (9) games to establish an average. A blind score of 120 will be used during those nine (9) games.
In the event a bowler’s ninth game occurs during a series (rather than at the end of a series), the individual’s handicap will change to reflect the average after that ninth game for the balance of that series. The team handicap will also change accordingly.

Getting away from Rules, and into BLS briefly to illustrate: I use "X" notation in scores entry for the establishing bowler, so the scores apply to his average only, and insert a VACANT bowler to add the team's 120 vacancy score and yes, handicap is appropriately applied to the 120.

[Patrick Lajko]

There is no argument or question of legality of what you do. It can lead to sandbagging, but it is not illegal by the USBC.

You need to keep in mind some things when we comment that a rule is unusual or way out in left field. I, have bowled on a number of areas from the midwest to California and Washington. I have been selling league software for over 30 years all over the world. I have seen league rules for thousands of leagues. I can say that what you do is unusual. The guy with the one game average is way out of the galaxy and in another dimension. Most people have only seen a few leagues in their local area. So of course they say "everybody does it this way" where it is just a few leagues in their area with an unusual local tradition.

While your rule of bowling as a pacer is unusual (given the entire world), it is not illegal but can lead to sandbagging. The guy with the one game average rule is not only unusual, it is bizarre, unfair to the bowlers and illegal.

We have found that with most leagues, when the math regarding an unusual rule is presented to them, they realize it and abandon the rule in favor of simpler rules.

Do the math on this rule:

The team handicap is 90% of the difference between team averages. If one team is above the base (let's say 1000) then the opposing team gets 100% of the amount over the base. Now figure two teams of 800 and 900 average. One team gets 90 pins. Now figure teams of 950 and 1050. The 950 team gets 95 pins (45 for difference between 950 and 1000 plus 50 for the amount over 1000)! The difference in the team averages is still 100, but the 950 team gets 95 while the 800 team gets only 90. They have this rule "to help the low average team". Well? Does it? Also, using the difference method totally invalidates any team handicap game and series scores for awards purposes as your handicap depends on WHO you bowl, not how good your team is.

Though we have had league secretarys say "Our league knows that is a stupid, unfair rule but they like it that way and don't want to change". I hope those people don't vote.

[Frank Goebel]

Just to get back to the question back in the BLS 2010 forum: the secretary there mentioned something about calculating handicap on, I think his word was, "game by game basis" and until I see the rule as written, and/or his explanation on how it's practically applied, I don't understand that part. Maybe it's identical (as much as possible) to what I'm doing it and the choice of words confuses rather than confounds. For that reason, I've remained somewhat silent, and not about to make any kind of judgment. Remember, he wanted to display zeroes (for display only, I'm surmising) as a reminder and so far, all I've done is shown what I do along those lines. Until I know exactly what he does, I can't say any more.

There is another axe to grind: My center is on the older AMF/Advantage system, which means that every bowler establishing average has to have games entered manually on their individual history, since there's no "X" notation available - it means in scores entry, to use an ID of "MV" (male vacancy) and populating with V120 scores, then looking up the bowler ID, editing history for that ID and week number, manually entering the date, indicating "Y" for game bowled for each game, and manually keying the game score. That editing screen doesn't display a total, so I have to be extra careful that I have them right, and further—if I do scores entry and forget to do that manual add—it will show an erroneous handicap display until I correct it. Not all bowlers are established at the end of week three, so I have at least two more weeks of manuals to do. On top of that - lining up low to high average means manually adjusting team rosters on that system, but at least I can have BLS' standings display that so I can make those adjustments for the following week right after bowling.

[Patrick Lajko]

There is no scoring system that will do your rule at the lanes. If 5 people are on a team - you get 5 scores. You can't have 3 regulars, 2 vacancies and 2 pacers.

That's another reason leagues go towards more standard ruls that are common world wide. Scoring systems can't afford the development time for a rule that one league uses.

That guy did mention a 1 game handicap - meaning game 8 would have average and handicap based only on the score of game 8.

Displaying a zero would confuse the bowlers and require that you tell them the rules. all the time the bowlers are wondering what they really have for an average. Bowlers should be smart enough to look at the standing sheet, see the number of games and remember that they are establishing an average. Showing a zero average would confuse them even more.

[Graham Ginsberg]

There is no argument or question of legality of what you do. It can lead to sandbagging, but it is not illegal by the USBC.



I don't know if I would describe the rule as illegal, but in my opinion it is nonsensical. A bowler whose scores are not counting is not establishing an average. They are pacing. Pacing does not count toward average (rule 107d). Therefore they are not establishing an average. With this rule I don't think there is any way for a bowler to establish an average.

Now while I cannot find USBC wording that says it that precisely, i.e it does not say that a pacer is any score that does not count, nor does it say that an average is only determined by scores that count, it is clearly that that is the intention. And it certainly is not within the spirit of the average rules or, in my opinion, bowling in general.

Just my 10c worth.

[Kerry Federer]

Here is what the rule book says about establishing an average.

Entering averages are determined by league rules A bowler who does not have an entering average or until they meet the requirement(s) defined by league rule(s), average is determined by dividing the total number of pins by the total number of games bowled the first league session.
This is an absolute according to the rules.

[Frank Goebel]

Last night, I bowled week one in a new league that's going USBC certified; its summer counterpart was not and was 95% never holding a sanction card. They used the summer (non certified) averages as a start; I could have challenged that since the summer wasn't certified, but that was the last thing I wanted to do with this group.

I wasn't there at the start of the summer, but they used the three-game establishment and it worked for them. That was in use last night; my team was all pre-established, and the opposing team was 100% new (starting with one vacancy, which itself was filled for games two and three). Since their team couldn't display handicap until the series was over, I didn't enter my team's handicap scores until then, either, so as to not confuse anyone.

So, once it was done - do all the math. The mean score of the league is probably close to 130; handicap is 100% to 700, at least no % to calculate. I had to apply a different handicap to game one (due to that vacancy score) than for two and three. To help, as bowlers on that opposing team finished, I totaled and jotted down their averages so I'd have totals ready pretty quick. Once the handicaps were applied, the wins and losses could be determined.

Why am I mentioning this? I've never said that I was opposed to first-night establishing (I once ran a small singles league where I was the only established bowler, doing just that) just that the nine-game thing is a norm around here. There is maybe just one advantage: A team knows, game by game, who won each game and series rather than having to wait until the end and do all that arithmetic. And knowing the attitudes of the people with whom I come in contact - that will be the biggest resistance I or anyone would encounter, I'd predict.

On an aside: The center is still using BLS 2007, I saw that notation for the first time last night (I don't know if it's an AS version, but that's probable), so while this new league was sold on USBC for all of the awards, that version of BLS won't detect the new awards structure, and with so many bowlers with very low averages, there's award potential there. I wonder what will be done....

[Patrick Lajko]

Most f you are mixing up / confusing two separate issues.

Issue 1: Establishing an average: This is how many games you bowl before your average is considered "valid" and "stable". That determines how many games you must have bowled before you are eligible for handicap awards. For the USBC, it istwo things. 12 games before youare eligible for average based awards. Second, 21 games minimum for an average to be used for a "book" average.

Issue #2: How to figure handicap at the start of the league and/or for new bowlers. Most leagues figure the handicap after you are finished bowling and from that week on, use your current average. if you have book averages or an average from the league's prior year, many leagues use that for a certain number of games or just the first night. This has nothing to do with an "established" average. The USBC doesn't tell you to ignore handicaps or use some goofy-ass rule until 12 or 21 games.

This whole discussion started because someone wanted to use only the game bowled for figuring the handicap. Think what would happen with Frank's league if you only used the current game: at 100% handicap, everyone would have a handicap score exactly the same as the base and everyone would tie. Besides the USBC saying you can not ignore previously bowled games when calculating an average (hence the rules for prebowl and makeup games), figuring at the end of the night would give you more realistic wins and losses (especially with 100% handicap).

Rules where you bowl as a pacer and scores don't count encourage sandbagging. Which is why the USBC says pacer scores do not count towards your average: bowl as a pacer... scores don't count... sandbag... drop your average... more handicap.

Please separate the two issues - start new threads. One for how many games to establish an average (which is usually 9 or 12) and another for how to figure handicap at the start of a league (keeping in mind that most leagues figure handicap at the end of the night then use current average from that point on.)

[Graham Ginsberg]

Patrick. I don't think we are mixing up the two things. There has been no discussion about averages for awards etc that I recall. USBC rule 53 talks about 'qualifying rules". It does use the term "Established" when talking about previous seasons averages though, but nothing about how to establish. Mind you, you do have to interpret that the term "Established" here refers to 21 games rather than whatever the league determines to be an "Established" average.

The rest of the USBC rules talk about "Establishing" an average in the context of the average to be used for handicapping purposes - specifically rules 118b and 118c.

I also saw nothing in Frank's original post in this thread that talked about using handicap on a game by game basis, although it was introduced by him in a later post based on a discussion in another thread or forum.

So if you are saying that this thread should be about how to determine what average to use for handicapping purposes when a bowler without an "Entering" average joins the league we are fully in agreement.

I've reread the rules again and got myself further confused when talking about partial completion of the eligibility requirement, so I'm going to have to read yet again.

We keep it simple in my league and effectively use the default rule - three games. Averages are calculated after the first night the individual bowls and is used to back calculate all three games that night.

As far as I can see if a league establishes a nine game rule, then you cannot calculate the first three weeks until the bowler has bowled for those three weeks.