WBT scoring system

Posted by: BOSStull

WBT scoring system - 02/21/16 03:41 PM

Why can't they just play the game the way it is meant to be?

http://news.pba.com/post/2016/2/18/Tune-...ampionship.aspx

After watching the the Barbasol PBA Players Championship this came on. I promptly turned the channel after a few frames.
Posted by: steveA

Re: WBT scoring system - 02/21/16 05:24 PM

I've checked it out a seems really weird, will have to look at a score sheet and see what difference it would make over the normal scoring method.
Posted by: mmalsed

Re: WBT scoring system - 02/22/16 11:28 AM

it takes the compound scoring out of it. Scores should be higher:

.X...9-...9/....X...X....9-....X...X.....9-.....X9/
19..28...48..77..96..105.134.153..162...182

WBT
30...39..58..88..118.127.157.187..196...226

(if you didn't click the link above - strikes are always 30, spares are 10 plus the pins you got on the first ball, so 1/ is 11, while 9/ is 19)

Interesting. I don't think I like it. . . way to simplistic.
Posted by: jbungard

Re: WBT scoring system - 02/22/16 01:48 PM

Common core math meets bowling...
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: WBT scoring system - 02/22/16 01:52 PM

I had a sense of deja-vu when I saw this post. I missed the tournament after the player's championship yesterday Was the WBT searching this forum for new scoring ideas? Here is a post from me in 2009 related to the Petraglia scoring system. Check my last post from this page of the thread (4th post from bottom).

http://www.bowlingcommunity.com/b/ubbthreads.php/topics/87919/Mkirchie.html#Post87919

Mark
Posted by: B-Hammer

Re: WBT scoring system - 02/22/16 07:35 PM

They said it was to show the IoC an alternative scoring method in their ongoing effort to get into the Olympics.

My guess is that traditional scoring does not go over well with the very casual Olympic viewing audience and that if they can simplify it they can gain more traction. With an international flyer you need to explain the rules of the sport in a paragraph, that is easier to do with the scoring system they used (10 frames, each frame is worth up to 30, highest score wins).

The interview between matches talking about the scoring system also stated they tried a frame by frame match play format (like golf) that really didn't go over well with the players or traditional audience.

The bowling entities are trying, they are getting pulled in a dozen different directions, but you can see that they are trying. Hopefully for the sport one of those directions works out well.
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: WBT scoring system - 02/22/16 08:16 PM

Of all the alternate scoring systems, I do prefer the system that they used on the show. I think it is about as similar as you can be to the traditional system. I don't think that only 10 shots for 300 is a good idea and I would like to see the 10th frame bonus balls stay. A perfect game still needs to be 12 strikes. Simple solution, make 10th frame strikes only worth 10 pins instead of 30. I really did not like the match play ideas or the Petraglia system.

Mark
Posted by: Fin09

Re: WBT scoring system - 02/22/16 10:46 PM

It's ok for a limited format event, kind of like the skins game in golf, and it's not going to take over the sport any time soon. Scores will be higher, and scores from 290-299 will be impossible. A 9/ somewhere in the middle of a game with traditional scoring gives you a max score of 279, but 9/ anywhere in the wbt scoring system gives you a max score of 289. Not bad for a made for tv event, but it won't revolutionize the scoring system.
Posted by: Joe Bowler

Re: WBT scoring system - 02/23/16 08:26 AM

Not that I'm a fan of changing the scoring system, but while watching the telecast, I was thinking why not make it even simpler, 30 for strikes, 20 for spares, and the total pins knocked over for open frames (or count 10 for opens for the truly math challenged)? It reminds me of years ago, when bowlers kept score with paper and pencil, when I was practicing, I used to mark the frames with only an X, /, or -. After 6-10 games, I could look back and get a pretty good idea of how well I was bowling.
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: WBT scoring system - 02/23/16 08:55 AM

I'm not a fan of making all spares automatically be 20 (or changing the scoring system at all, for that matter). I don't think it's right to make a good pocket hit that left a solid 8 pin equivalent in score to the person who missed the pocket and picked up a multi-pin spare. That was my original problem with the Petraglia scoring system. I know that the 8 pin was likely easier to pick up and sometimes you can be rewarded with a strike on a lousy shot, but I feel that any modified system has to maintain a score benefit for good count on the 1st ball.

Mark
Posted by: Joe Bowler

Re: WBT scoring system - 02/23/16 09:10 AM

I'd rather not change the scoring system, either. What's lost is the degree of resolution. But, good shot + easy spare balances itself out with bad shot + tough spare. The premise of a strike being 30 points is "counting" the next two shots as strikes. It's a similar premise for a spare being 20 points, "counting" the next shot as a strike. Surely, making open frames worth 10 points would be more controversial, but it would appeal to the math challenged and "everybody gets a trophy" mindset prevalent today.
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: WBT scoring system - 02/23/16 11:40 AM

I think that due to the nature of the game, some sort of bonus system is always going to be necessary due to the fact that you can never just score by total pins knocked down in a 2 shot system. I think that there would be an uproar from the bowling world if we scored each frame only by 1st ball with no 2nd ball. But, it would (mostly) help the math challenged and those who are not good spare shooters.

I more look at the 30 for a strike as # of pins knocked down plus a 20 pin bonus for knocking down all the pins in one shot. Then, the spare is the number of pins knocked down plus a 10 pin bonus for knocking down all the pins in 2 shots. I wasn't thinking of it in the sense of the current bonus ball format.

Mark
Posted by: Fin09

Re: WBT scoring system - 02/23/16 11:18 PM

The other thing this system does is remove the importance of which frames a bowler strikes, or doesn't strike. Traditionally, if you go spare, then 11 in a row, you shoot 290. Strike spare 10 bigger is 280. Strike strike 9/ 9 bagger is 279. They all have 11 strikes and a spare, but all 3 scores are different because of when the bowlers didn't strike. If a golfer birdies the first hole, then pars the next 17 holes on a par 72 course, he shoots 71. It doesn't matter which hole he birdies though, as 17 pars and one birdie is 1 under par.
The wbt system makes bowling more like golf in that area.
Posted by: greggas

Re: WBT scoring system - 02/24/16 03:07 PM

Originally Posted By: mmalsed
it takes the compound scoring out of it. Scores should be higher:

.X...9-...9/....X...X....9-....X...X.....9-.....X9/
19..28...48..77..96..105.134.153..162...182

WBT
30...39..58..88..118.127.157.187..196...226



...and what would be a dutch 200 becomes potentially 245. Way too many free pins. thumbsdown
Posted by: Mkirchie

Re: WBT scoring system - 02/24/16 04:19 PM

I think that any bonus system is likely going to favor one skill more than the other. I do feel that there could be too much benefit in traditional way of scoring for stringing strikes. Although unlikely, this could happen. If someone shoots a dutch 200 going X9/ the whole game and someone else gets the front 5 and then goes 9/ for the next 5 frames with a 9 on the fill ball, they get a 234. That bowler could miss 3 of the 5 single pin spares and still win by a pin because they strung their strikes, even though they both had the same # of strikes and the other person had much better spare shooting. I do think that it would be hard to swallow the kind of jump in averages and scores that would occur.

I'm willing to bet that if the scoring was always done the way that the WBT did, we would likely be having the same discussion with the current scoring system as a possible alternate. They both involve math that (for some reason) is apparently too confusing these days.

Mark