2012 IRI MATCH RESULTS AND STANDINGS

[Chris Fultz]

Here is an excel file of the final match results and final rankings from the 2012 IRI.

These results have been independently evaluated and confirmed by the accounting firm of Dean, Simmons and Kamen, LLP.

There are two tabs in the excel file. One for match results and one for final rankings.

[IndySam]

Anyone want to tell me how the bridge points were calculated? We tripped three time and had one of the lowest BP's.

[Chris Fultz]

One of the FTA's or the lead scorer can confirm this, but I believe the max bridge points in qualification matches was 20, the scoring system won't let you do any more than that. The scores were manually adjusted to add the extra 20 for any triples.

[Alex2614]

I don't see a final ranking in this file. Am I just being stupid or can nobody else see it either? All I see is match data.

[CalTran]

I don't see a final ranking in this file. Am I just being stupid or can nobody else see it either? All I see is match data.

Down at the bottom you should see a tab that says "Final Ranking"

[Gary Dillard]

I always like to point out how win-loss record does not matter when it comes to alliance selection, unless you win enough to be picking. Highest seeded team not picked - #13. Lowest seeded team picked - #58. 6 teams with 6-3 record not picked, 7 teams with losing records picked, including all 3 of the winning alliance's picks.

Teams need to be more concerned with performing well and marketing your abilities than with winning or losing during qualification matches.

[Adam Freeman]

Teams need to be more concerned with performing well and marketing your abilities than with winning or losing during qualification matches.

That's funny. After a terrible Friday of qualification matches, we were 2-4 and ranked 50th.

Coming into Saturday morning with 3 matches to play, my only goal was to showcase our scoring abilities and successfully triple balance in those 3 matches, regardless of winning matches.

Of course you have to balance your own needs with those of your partners. If we were all out of Top8 contention, I suggested we all try to highlight our abilities and triple regardless of the score. Only in our last match was 3322 ranked in the Top8. I let them dicated the strategy, since it was important for them to win the match.

We ended up winning all 3 matches...but only triple balancing in one of them, for various reasons.

[Chris Fultz]

Teams need to be more concerned with performing well and marketing your abilities than with winning or losing during qualification matches.

A strategy like that might be beneficial if you find yourself ranked, say, 100 of 100 in your division ... :rolleyes:

[Gary Dillard]

A strategy like that might be beneficial if you find yourself ranked, say, 100 of 100 in your division ... :rolleyes:

I guess i didn't word that too well. What I was trying to say is, if you find yourself 6-3 don't get too confident, if you find yourself 3-6 don't count yourself out, and especially don't overreact if you happen to drop from 20th seed to 30th seed sometime during the weekend after you lose one match or vice versa.

[mdaniel462]

One of the FTA's or the lead scorer can confirm this, but I believe the max bridge points in qualification matches was 20, the scoring system won't let you do any more than that. The scores were manually adjusted to add the extra 20 for any triples.


I was also told that it was only possible for them to add those 20 extra points to each team's tele-op score. If this is true it would explain why your bridge points seem to be low.

[stingray27]

Here is the OPR data for IRI if anyone is interested in looking at it. It is not adjusted for bridge balancing.

[Brandon Holley]

341s OPR was 11 points (!!) higher than the next highest. That is just ridonkulous.

-Brando

[Brant Bowen]

One of the FTA's or the lead scorer can confirm this, but I believe the max bridge points in qualification matches was 20, the scoring system won't let you do any more than that. The scores were manually adjusted to add the extra 20 for any triples.

Chris and Matt are right. During Qualification rounds FMS can only handle a maximum of 20 Bridge Points because during the regular season that is all that was allowed. Bravo (the scorekeeper) added the 20 points manually if there was a triple balance. There was no way to record these as bridge points so that is why the ranking sheet and the displays at the end of the matches are inaccurate.

[qzrrbz]

Here is the OPR data for IRI if anyone is interested in looking at it. It is not adjusted for bridge balancing.

methinks the column labels for BP and TP may be swapped :)

[Ed Law]

Here are the OPR numbers including total, hybrid, bridge and teleop OPR.


OPR Rank/Team/OPR/OPR Hybrid/OPR Bridge/OPR Teleop
1 341 52.46 15.85 10.14 18.46
2 624 41.46 14.10 9.91 16.15
3 118 37.00 2.92 6.60 23.44
4 1023 36.84 8.30 10.66 11.37
5 2826 36.57 13.18 2.08 24.41
6 67 36.40 15.39 5.72 17.20
7 2056 34.26 12.73 7.56 17.51
8 233 33.98 7.88 5.24 22.92
9 469 33.97 3.13 4.65 23.59
10 51 33.80 5.29 10.45 16.84
11 68 33.00 12.51 4.30 9.13
12 2614 32.60 8.62 9.28 10.69
13 33 31.66 6.00 10.10 16.07
14 48 31.23 10.14 8.22 13.18
15 16 31.16 10.80 4.17 12.57
16 1676 30.72 9.35 5.87 16.47
17 2168 29.88 11.47 -1.05 8.35
18 548 29.79 9.43 9.93 11.04
19 1114 29.09 9.60 2.50 15.39
20 125 28.79 11.10 3.75 13.52
21 359 27.54 5.05 2.99 22.88
22 1741 26.97 8.94 7.06 7.65
23 1714 26.68 8.19 7.21 10.81
24 340 26.55 11.95 6.84 7.14
25 111 26.11 13.99 2.53 9.62
26 148 25.98 5.50 8.57 14.30
27 1640 25.74 9.67 5.76 7.46
28 3322 25.39 9.26 6.85 11.35
29 330 24.37 1.28 7.43 13.74
30 2590 23.89 7.17 2.41 14.07
31 192 23.38 5.50 1.32 9.42
32 2337 23.03 13.71 6.07 3.84
33 868 22.41 6.71 2.15 13.22
34 3947 21.38 8.92 6.36 8.84
35 1732 20.87 7.59 6.78 8.73
36 2194 20.04 4.29 5.26 7.30
37 234 20.03 9.86 3.93 6.91
38 573 19.91 4.99 6.49 11.93
39 3357 19.66 4.22 1.81 9.60
40 2949 19.58 6.34 5.49 8.42
41 3193 19.27 7.12 6.81 6.75
42 503 19.26 7.25 0.45 14.00
43 461 19.20 2.85 4.65 8.39
44 2834 19.16 7.60 6.13 1.79
45 2481 19.11 10.93 0.63 4.14
46 3940 18.77 7.95 6.06 1.81
47 973 18.77 7.22 6.92 4.49
48 447 18.67 3.70 -1.89 13.57
49 3138 17.80 6.60 3.53 9.80
50 71 17.13 5.48 1.72 3.15
51 1538 16.15 9.76 2.11 6.29
52 2054 15.78 7.04 3.04 6.37
53 45 14.67 7.20 7.00 3.60
54 27 14.11 2.07 3.42 10.23
55 4334 13.56 2.18 4.55 3.62
56 399 13.37 6.08 -0.32 7.32
57 829 13.08 2.10 -1.89 8.55
58 781 12.65 1.40 5.37 7.35
59 379 12.20 6.15 -2.11 8.62
60 3310 10.97 7.14 4.09 -2.50
61 245 10.58 6.33 0.51 4.13
62 217 9.73 6.88 0.54 2.14
63 1730 9.40 9.72 0.91 0.40
64 744 9.20 3.82 1.57 4.06
65 772 8.73 2.75 5.86 1.73
66 1592 8.10 2.00 -3.31 8.58
67 907 7.51 0.21 -2.47 10.07
68 292 3.19 3.54 -2.67 4.06
69 1902 1.37 3.63 -0.31 -1.24
70 1024 -0.43 0.71 -2.81 2.70

[AdamHeard]

Anyone know what matches had triples in them?

[Travis Hoffman]

Anyone know what matches had triples in them?

Here are the ones I recall off the top of my head.

3 triples were in matches involving 48 - Matches 28, 62, and 99.

Whether or not they were helpful or particularly entertaining for yours truly, I leave as an exercise for the reader to determine. :cool:

233 lost Match 75 to a triple after they were leading.

2826 lost Match 97 to a triple after they were leading.

340 tripled twice, one time with 341 and 447, in Match 72, defeating 469, 359, and 2337. I believe their other triple came during Match 101.

By the way, why did all the scouting geniuses picking for elims overlook 3940? They are peppered throughout these qualifying triple results.

[dodar]

1592 tripled twice but 1 was disallowed. Match 57 when we were with 1538, this was the disallowed triple, and match 103 when we were with 340 and 1023.

[bam-bam]

By the way, why did all the scouting geniuses picking for elims overlook 3940? They are peppered throughout these qualifying triple results.

They were also close to 4334's width, too. I am disappoint.

[stingray27]

In match 76, teams 27, 4334, and 2194 balanced even though they didn't need the triple balance.

[Clinton Bolinger]

This what our scouting database shows.

Triple Balances:
Match 01 - Red (341, 2834, 33)
Match 25 - Blue (2194, 829, 548)
Match 28 - Red (4334, 469, 48)
Match 29 - Blue (3357, 2834, 1023)
Match 56 - Red (341, 2614, 2481)
Match 61 - Both (3310, 341, 829 and 68, 118, 2590)
Match 62 - Red (16, 2834, 1114)
Match 65 - Red (3322, 1023, 125)
Match 72 - Red (340, 341, 447)
Match 74 - Blue (51, 3310, 67)
Match 75 - Blue (111, 3940, 3357)
Match 76 - Red (4334, 2194, 27)
Match 80 - Red (1640, 217, 1741)
Match 97 - Red (3940, 148, 2614)
*Match 99 - Blue (2481, 234, 461)
*Match 101 - Red (1592, 340, 1023)

* I dont have data for anything past match 97. Matches 99 and 101 are based on Travis post above.

Based on the data the top triple balance teams were:

341 = 4
2834 = 3

10 Teams = 2
21 Teams = 1

Hope this helps,
-Clinton-

[AdamHeard]

3 triples were in matches involving 48 - Matches 28, 62, and 99.

Whether or not they were helpful or particularly entertaining for yours truly, I leave as an exercise for the reader to determine.

Based on your win-loss record, which matches you played that involved triples, and our scouting data the IRI rule changes had no effect on the fact that you didn't make eliminations. In other words, I think the fear/discussion going into the event was unnecessary.

[Travis Hoffman]

Based on your win-loss record, which matches you played that involved triples, and our scouting data the IRI rule changes had no effect on the fact that you didn't make eliminations. In other words, I think the fear/discussion going into the event was unnecessary.

:cool:

[waialua359]

I dont get how our Hybrid points in the OPR data is so low.
We made every single hybrid shot except for 1 (1/2 in our match 7) that we chose to realign our robot without ever testing, to let both our partners use the spots we normally take.

I realize how OPR is calculated....just saying.:rolleyes:

[AdamHeard]

Here are the OPR numbers including total, hybrid, bridge and teleop OPR.


OPR Rank/Team/OPR/OPR Hybrid/OPR Bridge/OPR Teleop
1 341 52.46 15.85 10.14 18.46
2 624 41.46 14.10 9.91 16.15
3 118 37.00 2.92 6.60 23.44
4 1023 36.84 8.30 10.66 11.37
5 2826 36.57 13.18 2.08 24.41
6 67 36.40 15.39 5.72 17.20
7 2056 34.26 12.73 7.56 17.51
8 233 33.98 7.88 5.24 22.92
9 469 33.97 3.13 4.65 23.59
10 51 33.80 5.29 10.45 16.84
11 68 33.00 12.51 4.30 9.13
12 2614 32.60 8.62 9.28 10.69
13 33 31.66 6.00 10.10 16.07
14 48 31.23 10.14 8.22 13.18
15 16 31.16 10.80 4.17 12.57
16 1676 30.72 9.35 5.87 16.47
17 2168 29.88 11.47 -1.05 8.35
18 548 29.79 9.43 9.93 11.04
19 1114 29.09 9.60 2.50 15.39
20 125 28.79 11.10 3.75 13.52
21 359 27.54 5.05 2.99 22.88
22 1741 26.97 8.94 7.06 7.65
23 1714 26.68 8.19 7.21 10.81
24 340 26.55 11.95 6.84 7.14
25 111 26.11 13.99 2.53 9.62
26 148 25.98 5.50 8.57 14.30
27 1640 25.74 9.67 5.76 7.46
28 3322 25.39 9.26 6.85 11.35
29 330 24.37 1.28 7.43 13.74
30 2590 23.89 7.17 2.41 14.07
31 192 23.38 5.50 1.32 9.42
32 2337 23.03 13.71 6.07 3.84
33 868 22.41 6.71 2.15 13.22
34 3947 21.38 8.92 6.36 8.84
35 1732 20.87 7.59 6.78 8.73
36 2194 20.04 4.29 5.26 7.30
37 234 20.03 9.86 3.93 6.91
38 573 19.91 4.99 6.49 11.93
39 3357 19.66 4.22 1.81 9.60
40 2949 19.58 6.34 5.49 8.42
41 3193 19.27 7.12 6.81 6.75
42 503 19.26 7.25 0.45 14.00
43 461 19.20 2.85 4.65 8.39
44 2834 19.16 7.60 6.13 1.79
45 2481 19.11 10.93 0.63 4.14
46 3940 18.77 7.95 6.06 1.81
47 973 18.77 7.22 6.92 4.49
48 447 18.67 3.70 -1.89 13.57
49 3138 17.80 6.60 3.53 9.80
50 71 17.13 5.48 1.72 3.15
51 1538 16.15 9.76 2.11 6.29
52 2054 15.78 7.04 3.04 6.37
53 45 14.67 7.20 7.00 3.60
54 27 14.11 2.07 3.42 10.23
55 4334 13.56 2.18 4.55 3.62
56 399 13.37 6.08 -0.32 7.32
57 829 13.08 2.10 -1.89 8.55
58 781 12.65 1.40 5.37 7.35
59 379 12.20 6.15 -2.11 8.62
60 3310 10.97 7.14 4.09 -2.50
61 245 10.58 6.33 0.51 4.13
62 217 9.73 6.88 0.54 2.14
63 1730 9.40 9.72 0.91 0.40
64 744 9.20 3.82 1.57 4.06
65 772 8.73 2.75 5.86 1.73
66 1592 8.10 2.00 -3.31 8.58
67 907 7.51 0.21 -2.47 10.07
68 292 3.19 3.54 -2.67 4.06
69 1902 1.37 3.63 -0.31 -1.24
70 1024 -0.43 0.71 -2.81 2.70


What did you do to calculate the subset opr if only the raw red/blue scores were posted (unless I'm missing something).

[Ed Law]

What did you do to calculate the subset opr if only the raw red/blue scores were posted (unless I'm missing something).
The information needed to calculate subset OPR is from the standings sheet HP, BP and TP which are the total of hybrid, bridge and teleop points. It is very convenient to use. When solving Ax=B for total OPR, we use total score of all matches for each team as B. For subset OPR, B is simply HP, BP and TP. This is the same way I have been calculating them all season and it matches what Bongle gets with his calculation.

[AdamHeard]

The information needed to calculate subset OPR is from the standings sheet HP, BP and TP which are the total of hybrid, bridge and teleop points. It is very convenient to use. When solving Ax=B for total OPR, we use total score of all matches for each team as B. For subset OPR, B is simply HP, BP and TP. This is the same way I have been calculating them all season and it matches what Bongle gets with his calculation.

Although this requires more initial information, would it be more accurate to know the specific HP, TP and BP for each match?

[Ed Law]

No, the results would be identical. Even if I have the individual match HP, BP and TP, I will add them up to put into the vector B so it is the same results.

However if you have the individual team's HP, BP and TP, then there is no point getting their calculated contribution because you already have the actual number.

[Ed Law]

I dont get how our Hybrid points in the OPR data is so low.
We made every single hybrid shot except for 1 (1/2 in our match 7) that we chose to realign our robot without ever testing, to let both our partners use the spots we normally take.

I realize how OPR is calculated....just saying.:rolleyes:

Glenn, I don't know why the number came out so low. I guess that is the limitation of OPR with 9 matches and 70 teams, meaning limited interaction among teams. I will double check the numbers when I have time later tonight. I was very busy at work the last two days catching up with work after taking two days off. I spent about two minutes to copy, paste and run the macro. I didn't really look at the numbers. Since the total OPR number matches what somebody else posted, I assume the subset OPR are correct also.

[Ed Law]

This what our scouting database shows.

Triple Balances:
Match 01 - Red (341, 2834, 33)
Match 25 - Blue (2194, 829, 548)
Match 28 - Red (4334, 469, 48)
Match 29 - Blue (3357, 2834, 1023)
Match 56 - Red (341, 2614, 2481)
Match 61 - Both (3310, 341, 829 and 68, 118, 2590)
Match 62 - Red (16, 2834, 1114)
Match 65 - Red (3322, 1023, 125)
Match 72 - Red (340, 341, 447)
Match 74 - Blue (51, 3310, 67)
Match 75 - Blue (111, 3940, 3357)
Match 76 - Red (4334, 2194, 27)
Match 80 - Red (1640, 217, 1741)
Match 97 - Red (3940, 148, 2614)
*Match 99 - Blue (2481, 234, 461)
*Match 101 - Red (1592, 340, 1023)

* I dont have data for anything past match 97. Matches 99 and 101 are based on Travis post above.

Based on the data the top triple balance teams were:

341 = 4
2834 = 3

10 Teams = 2
21 Teams = 1

Hope this helps,
-Clinton-

Thanks Clinton. This post made my day, to have our team number right below 341 in second place for most number of triple balance. We had a lucky schedule in terms of partners who are good in triple balance.

[Karthik]

Glenn, I don't know why the number came out so low. I guess that is the limitation of OPR with 9 matches and 70 teams, meaning limited interaction among teams. I will double check the numbers when I have time later tonight. I was very busy at work the last two days catching up with work after taking two days off. I spent about two minutes to copy, paste and run the macro. I didn't really look at the numbers. Since the total OPR number matches what somebody else posted, I assume the subset OPR are correct also.

It's definitely a case of the sample size effect. OPR can produce some very funny results when restricted to a limited range of values over a small array of matches with a large array of teams.