Rank vs. blue banner chance

[Joseph1825]

This is something I have been thinking about for awhile now. what would a graph look like that plotted your seeding rank vs. your chance to be on the winning alliance?
Does seeding first actually give the highest chance of winning? (and by how much?) Who has a higher chance of winning, 7th seed or 8th seed? Is seeding higher really always better, and if not, are there circumstances where throwing a match give you a higher chance of winning the regional?
Unfortunately, I don't know how to compile the FRC/TBA data to make a graph like this. Is there anyone else who would be interested enough to do it?

[artK]

This (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/3046) has the data you are looking for this year. If you search through the white papers or through the thread, you can probably find similar documents.

[faust1706]

here is a quick graph. I'm going to work on seed next (not alliance, but after qualifications are over)

http://imgur.com/lqUiA6i

[Caleb Sykes]

Courtesy of the 2834 scouting database. Qualification seeding rank on the left, number of event winning teams on right.
1 51
2 34
3 15
4 26
5 12
6 9
7 13
8 3
9 2
10 8
11 3
12 2
13 6
14 3
15 5
16 4
17 7
18 10
19 4
20 4
21 2
22 10
23 6
24 8
25 3
26 4
27 1
28 5
29 4
30 6
31 7
32 5
33 1
34 3
35 1
36 1
37 0
38 5
39 2
40 2
41 2
42 1
43 1
44 2
45 0
46 1
47 1
48 1
49 1
50 0
51 2
52 0
53 0
54 1
55 0
56 0
57 1
58 0
59 0
60 1
61 0
62 0
63 0
64 0
65 0
66 0
67 0
68 0
69 0
70 0
71 0
72 1
73 0
74 0
75 0
76 0
77 0
78 0
79 0
80 0
81 0
82 0
83 0
84 0
85 0
86 0
87 0
88 0
89 0
90 0
91 0
92 0
93 0
94 0
95 0
96 0
97 0
98 0
99 0
100 0


I have also attached a graph of the top 24 seeds.

My total number of event winners was 313, which is not divisible by 3, probably due to backup teams.

It is interesting that the number of 4th seed winners exceeds the number of 3rd seed winners by an appreciable margin. I wonder what could cause that? It might just be noise though, I'll add in results from the past few years tomorrow.

[jvriezen]

... Is seeding higher really always better, and if not, are there circumstances where throwing a match give you a higher chance of winning the regional? ...

Please dispense with all consideration of 'throwing a match.' You have alliance partners who very likely want to win and you owe it to them to try, even if it is not in your own team's best interest, statistically.

[New Lightning]

If you thinking about throwing a match, don't. Especially if your alliance partners don't want to lose, then if your trying to throw the match and their trying to win, then they have to compete against 4 robots instead of 3. And plus one of the big points of 2014 was to encourage cooperation between teams. It is just not in the spirit of FIRST to throw a match. Secondly as an alliance captain for elims, and I see that a team threw a match, I don't want them on my alliance because that team is just in it for themselves and not the alliance. Some food for thought.

[MechEng83]

Please dispense with all consideration of 'throwing a match.' You have alliance partners who very likely want to win and you owe it to them to try, even if it is not in your own team's best interest, statistically.

While I was not around for the madness, I understand there was a "6v0" problem due to the way qualification worked in some previous years. When matched against a much more powerful alliance, it was to the "weaker" alliance's advantage to score in the "better" alliance's goal(s). Winning is best, for sure, but the rules in a particular year may make losing spectacularly more beneficial than losing by a closer margin.
On the flip side, there have been years where the seeding points were awarded based on the losing team's score, thus incentivizing the winning alliance to not play as well, or even score for the other alliance.

[BBray_T1296]

Please dispense with all consideration of 'throwing a match.' You have alliance partners who very likely want to win and you owe it to them to try, even if it is not in your own team's best interest, statistically.

Agreed. "throwing a match" is just about as far from gracious professionalism as you could possibly get.
If I knew we had lost a match because an alliance member determined it was better for them to lose, there is no word in the English dictionary to describe my disgust.

[Citrus Dad]

It is interesting that the number of 4th seed winners exceeds the number of 3rd seed winners by an appreciable margin. I wonder what could cause that? It might just be noise though, I'll add in results from the past few years tomorrow.

What's really interesting are the spikes at 18 and 22. I'm guessing that those are most often the remaining picks at the end of the snake draft. Would be interesting to look at other years.

[Lil' Lavery]

What's really interesting are the spikes at 18 and 22. I'm guessing that those are most often the remaining picks at the end of the snake draft. Would be interesting to look at other years.

Or to look at average draft position compared to rank. Intuitively, one would assume it to be fairly linear for a while, before more or less flatlining.

[Caleb Sykes]

Here is the data from 2011-2014. The top 8 are roughly what I had anticipated. 5th seed won more frequently than 4th seed, and 7th seed won more frequently than 6th seed, but not by any substantial margin.

What I find interesting is that any seed between ~8 to ~30 has (very) roughly the same number of event winning teams as any other seed within this range.

[pntbll1313]

Here is the data from 2011-2014. The top 8 are roughly what I had anticipated. 5th seed won more frequently than 4th seed, and 7th seed won more frequently than 6th seed, but not by any substantial margin.

What I find interesting is that any seed between ~8 to ~30 has (very) roughly the same number of event winning teams as any other seed within this range.

Thanks inking! This seems to answer the OP's questions pretty completely. It's interesting how steep the droppoff was some years with number of teams winning an event at each rank. In 2012 only 1 team won an event while ranked 5, but in 2013 there were 13. That could be noise I guess, but the games could have had something to do with it as well. One point of clarification for everybody, because of the picking among the top 8, it is likely seeds 9 and 10 will be a captain which is why 9 and 10 show a higher winning percentage than 11-15. I know other threads have analyzed alliance rank 1-8 and their chance of winning in each year, so I won't go into that here. Just thought I'd point it out.

[MARS_James]

With the thread entitled Rank vs Blue banner chance, I would love to see a list of teams this year who won a Chairman's Award and what their rank was, since that is also a blue banner :D

[New Lightning]

I think that James makes an interesting point about rank vs. chairman award. I wonder if there is something to be said about building a robot that can play the game but then focusing on chairman award submission. Rather than a super competitive bot, a super strong chairman's submission. I personally don't think that that is the way to go, but is there some validity to this strategy? I don't know.

[BriteBacon]

With the thread entitled Rank vs Blue banner chance, I would love to see a list of teams this year who won a Chairman's Award and what their rank was, since that is also a blue banner :D

Here are the ranks for all the Chairman's Award winners from last season.

Rank Number
1 9
2 9
3 7
4 6
5 4
6 4
7 1
8 5
9 2
10 3
11 4
12 3
13 3
14 1
15 1
16 3
17 1
18
19 2
20 2
21 2
22 2
23 2
24
25 1
26 2
27 3
28 3
29
30 1
31
32 1
33
34 2
35
36 1
37 1
38 1
39 1
40
41 1
42
43
44 1
45
46 1
47
48 1
49
50
51
52 1
53
54 1
55
56
57 1
58
59
60
61
62
63
64

[New Lightning]

Thanks for the chairman's rankings. I guess it seems that the top teams on the field are the top teams off the field as well. I would have expected more winners outside the top 8. But very interesting. I think answered my question. Very interesting results.

[weaversam8]

Just a programmer's 2 cents, try using the D3.js library to visualize data from TBA. It's very extensible and slick.

[Joseph1825]

Disclaimer: When I say throwing a match would be helpful I don't mean that you should do it, I just wanted to know if statistically there are times where you would be in a better position if you threw the match.

Now back to the thread.

Thanks inkling! That's exactly what I was looking for. You can make some interesting observations from those graphs, for instance, I didn't realize how much more likely a #1 seed is to win than a #2 seed. I also think that the graph does show that there is really no situation where throwing a match would be helpful.* And even if it would be, most good teams would see that you threw the match and wouldn't pick you anyway.


*(unless maybe you are #15 and you can drop exactly 2 spots.)

[Caleb Sykes]

With the thread entitled Rank vs Blue banner chance, I would love to see a list of teams this year who won a Chairman's Award and what their rank was, since that is also a blue banner :D

For completeness, here are all blue banner recipients with their seeding position. The data are averaged from 2011-2014. Thanks to team 1114 for use of their scouting database.

There is a nice correlation between ranking high and number of Chairman's or EI wins. The data for RAS are much more scattered. I'm not sure that the RAS graph actually says much of anything. Looking at this graph without fully understanding it might imply that it is better for rookies to seed lower at an event if they want to win RAS. However, that would be a false conclusion since rookies are generally not uniformly distributed throughout the seeds at an event.

EDIT: mislabeled axes, see next post

[Caleb Sykes]

I mislabeled the axes on the spreadsheet from my last post.

This one makes more sense.

[Foster]

Thanks for the chairman's rankings. I guess it seems that the top teams on the field are the top teams off the field as well. I would have expected more winners outside the top 8. But very interesting. I think answered my question. Very interesting results.

I see that differently, looks like teams that win Chairman's may or may not have a good robot. Which makes sense, since the award is more about community, outreach, spreading STEM vs robot on the field. Top teams have gotten into the swing of "We build great Robots and now that we got that, we can look at our real mission". Some teams are the other way.

Chairman's teams are amazing. I listen to the regional awards and it's amazing the things they do. Homeless, elderly, cancer, disabled, learning, other countries ....

Roboteers Rock!

[IKE]

I have also attached a graph of the top 24 seeds.

My total number of event winners was 313, which is not divisible by 3, probably due to backup teams.

It is interesting that the number of 4th seed winners exceeds the number of 3rd seed winners by an appreciable margin. I wonder what could cause that? It might just be noise though, I'll add in results from the past few years tomorrow.

I took your data and divided the number of position winners by total winners/3 to get an idea of the probability of being on the winning alliance based off of ranking position. An interesting (though not unexpected) finding was that typically, #1 position was above 60% likelihood of winning. This makes sense because the #1 ranking spot means you are likely either the best or can pick the best.
I think you can judge the 3 team engagement and/or ranking system by how high the #1 position is. For instance, 2011 (0.66) and 2012 (0.61) were games that could usually be won by 2 really good bots. I am not saying the 3rd did nothing, they were just a significantly lower contributor, and weren't as required to do well (ignoring World champions which had an incredibly influential 3rd partner). For the 2013 (0.56) game, a powerful 3 could overcome a very strong 2 which shows a dip in that probability of the #1 spot as well as the #2 spot. 2014 was even lower with the #1 dipping below 50% (0.49). This is likely the first time since 3v3 that this has occurred. This also makes sense as for 2014, at most regionals, you needed a decent third partner could help overcome a 2 strong team alliance.

For me personally, games like 2013 hit the balance just right for a serpentine style draft. I almost felt that 2014 shifted the balance a bit too much. If I had time, I would love to see difference between events with more than 40 teams and events with 40 and under to see if there is a significant trend difference there.