top of page

A closer look at bowler averages


Winter League


If you take a look at the Bowler Averages on Bowlsnet for our League then you will find that things are changing. The running order for individuals isn't based on Averages at all now. Some changes by the developer has altered the way that individual records can be calculated.


So the system is now set up in the order that individual records are now sorted and presented as follows:

  1. Games Won When they are level the order is then sorted by

  2. Aggregate For When they are still level the order is then sorted by

  3. Aggregate Difference

At present only bowlers who have played in a minimum of 3 games are included in the averages at all. That minimum number will gradually increase to a minimum of 6 when the season ends. Remember we have a trophy lined up for the Top Bowler for the end of season leader in our Averages table. That will be based on the 12 League games only and will not include the two planned Play-Off matches (more about them later).


Even after all that you look at the Winter League Averages you will note that they are split by Divisions. To work out the destination of the new Top Bowler trophy then we need to merge these two sets of tables. I've done that and they are produced below as at this morning prior to the matches being played later today. I'll keep producing merged tables at varying times for the rest of the season.

Click on table to enlarge

Position sorted by 'Games Won' then by 'Aggregate For' and finally by 'Aggregate Difference'

221 views5 comments

Recent Posts

See All

5 Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
paw4647
paw4647
Dec 09, 2020

I hope you allow this final comment as I don’t want to be too much of a bore.

I accept the new way of deciding averages but could it be fairer if the percentage of games won was the criteria.

Interestingly in the averages in Div. 1 of the vets for 2019 the bowler who was second in the averages would have been top if it was based on percentage of games won having won 13 out of 16, But under the new system he ends up being 16 th !! Philip of Lindley

Like

Jeff Jacklin
Jeff Jacklin
Dec 08, 2020

Philip you are correct in your assumption that I incorrectly quoted one 21-20 win when I should have said 21-0. My error which I have corrected in the original comment posting above. Thats why you are an accountant and I am not.

Like

paw4647
paw4647
Dec 08, 2020

Jeff, in your example the player playing 20 games has a net score of minus 2 whereas the player playing 12 games would have a net score of minus 10 and so under both methods player one is higher up the averages. (Perhaps you intended to say player two won his game 21-0 and not 21-20.)

In reality, I could not foresee what you quote ever happening whereas what I have seen happen season after season is a captain playing all games and, being one of the better players had a good win ratio whereas other good players who missed a few games through holidays etc had fewer wins but were acknowledged by teammates as better players. It must follow…


Like

Jeff Jacklin
Jeff Jacklin
Dec 08, 2020

Thanks Philip.


Walking around the two greens today talking to people I got exactly the opposite feedback from more than one individual. The belief being that concentrating on Games Won favours the bowler who supports the League by bowling often.


Using the old system I was quoted the example of a bowler playing 20 times and winning 19 of then 21-20 and then losing the other 0-21. They would end up with a negative average whereas an individual losing 20-21 in 11 games and winning one game by 21-0 would have a better average despite only winning one game all season. "Which bowler would you rather have in your team?" I was asked.


It is difficult to introduce a totally…


Like

paw4647
paw4647
Dec 08, 2020

I have to say that I don’t favour this way of calculating averages. If you look at the table Peter Taylor of Denby Dale is way down in 13 th position having won all 3 games with an average of 15.33 which is the best average of the 12 bowlers above him. In my view he should be number 1 in the averages.

Presumably this new way will create a situation at the end of the season where eg a bowler plays 12 games winning 8 being higher up the averages than a bowler who has played 7 games and winning all of them and having a far superior average. Is the League going to accept this in deciding the bowl…


Like
bottom of page