View Full Version : Top regional winners
mipo0707
10-11-2015, 13:51
1. 254 - 29 Regional wins
2. 1114 - 26 Regional wins
3. 2056 - 22 Regional wins
4. 67 - 21 Regional wins
5. 359 and 469 - 17 Regional wins
6. 118 - 16 Regional wins
7. 33 and 16 and 148 - 14 Regional wins
8. 233 and 217 - 12 Regional wins
9. 111 and 987 - 11 Regional wins
10. 1717 and 1983 - 10 Regional wins
67 and 469 are different on tba because the DCMP were counted too
orangemoore
10-11-2015, 13:52
What is point of this?
Darkseer54
10-11-2015, 13:56
Yes, I too read The Blue Alliance.
mipo0707
10-11-2015, 13:59
It is too show that the tba insights page is wrong
It is too show that the tba insights page is wrong
You know you can email the folks at tba?
Jay O'Donnell
10-11-2015, 14:05
Some people consider DCMP the same as a regional.
Perhaps it would be interesting to look at percentages of regionals played & won vs number of regionals won. It would reduce the impact of the teams' ages.
Perhaps it would be interesting to look at percentages of regionals played & won vs number of regionals won. It would reduce the impact of the teams' ages.
2056 - 100% :)
Brian Maher
10-11-2015, 14:15
You know you can email the folks at tba?
They're also pretty attentive on the #moardata @ The Blue Alliance (https://www.facebook.com/groups/moardata/) Facebook group.
Joe Ross
10-11-2015, 16:01
Where did you come up with the teams on your list? Here are some other teams with 10 or more regional wins:
175, 330, 1986.
MaGiC_PiKaChU
10-11-2015, 17:02
2056 - 100% :)
With WATER even more stacked than last year, I hope they can keep it that way :yikes:
tindleroot
10-11-2015, 20:06
Some people consider DCMP the same as a regional.
I believe "some people" includes FIRST in this case.
Jay O'Donnell
10-11-2015, 20:16
I believe "some people" includes FIRST in this case.
Not sure if TBA statistics (that are just made because people enjoy them) are FIRST official. Anyone know for sure?
tindleroot
10-11-2015, 21:39
Not sure if TBA statistics (that are just made because people enjoy them) are FIRST official. Anyone know for sure?
The insights on TBA are made to follow "significant" trends to the FIRST community, not necessarily the same way as FIRST records them. (Some of the stats are not even recorded by FIRST, rather TBA calculated them directly from regional data)
Blue Banners, Championship Wins, and Chairman's are self explanatory. Regional and District wins also includes District Championships even though the title does not explicitly say so (I agree that it SHOULD include DCMPs), and the successful teamups include every alliance that wins a blue banner: Regional, District, DCMP, CMP Division, and Einstein. This is why a lot of "odd" combos pop up - 254 and 111, for example, are credited with 3 successful teamups due to an Einstein appearance together in 2001 and a Einstein win in 2011. Expect them to win together again in 2021. :) I feel like World champs alliances should not be counted twice in this stat, but it is how it is.
With WATER even more stacked than last year, I hope they can keep it that way :yikes:
#IFIAlliance first seed?
MaGiC_PiKaChU
10-11-2015, 23:22
#IFIAlliance first seed?
Just saying 1114, 2056, 148 and 610 can't all be in alliance #1 :yikes:
Looks like the regional is stronger than a world subdivision
BBray_T1296
10-11-2015, 23:35
Just saying 1114, 2056, 148 and 610 can't all be in alliance #1 :yikes:
Looks like the regional is stronger than a world subdivision
This brought me back to this picture from before my time
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/img/b8b/b8ba37bf194f71d41dbbad67fd3a07c4_m.jpg
Team IFI has changed since then...
BrennanB
11-11-2015, 03:37
Not sure if TBA statistics (that are just made because people enjoy them) are FIRST official. Anyone know for sure?
Having worked with a lot of the TBA data, people should really know that lots of 2005 data is non-existent. I don't know why... It just is. TBA data I would assume is compiled by TBA and it's databases, I doubt FIRST would be interested in keeping track of such information for themselves.
Just saying 1114, 2056, 148 and 610 can't all be in alliance #1 :yikes:
Looks like the regional is stronger than a world subdivision
This might be a slight overstatement.
2056 - 100% :)
2056 drop the mike.
This brought me back to this picture from before my time
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/img/b8b/b8ba37bf194f71d41dbbad67fd3a07c4_m.jpg
Team IFI has changed since then...
TEAM IFI: All your banners belong to us.
Where did you come up with the teams on your list? Here are some other teams with 10 or more regional wins:
175, 330, 1986.
Correct. 1986 is currently at 11 regional wins.
Pauline Tasci
12-11-2015, 00:22
Always a shocker to people when we tell everyone we have won more division wins than regional wins... (2-1)
PayneTrain
12-11-2015, 00:49
Always a shocker to people when we tell everyone we have won more division wins than regional wins... (2-1)
http://reactiongif.org/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/08/GIF-confetti-meh-party-hard-squidward-GIF.gif
Michael Corsetto
12-11-2015, 08:47
Always a shocker to people when we tell everyone we have won more division wins than regional wins... (2-1)
1671 has more World Championship wins than Regional Wins (1-0).
Andrew Schreiber
12-11-2015, 09:24
Having worked with a lot of the TBA data, people should really know that lots of 2005 data is non-existent. I don't know why... It just is. TBA data I would assume is compiled by TBA and it's databases, I doubt FIRST would be interested in keeping track of such information for themselves.
Some of the match data from that year just doesn't really exist. Or it's in really weird formats. Or it's just flat out wrong. (On FIRST's own pages)
Noudvanbrunscho
12-11-2015, 09:37
1671 has more World Championship wins than Regional Wins (1-0).
I had to check this to believe it, that's so cool.:eek:
BrennanB
12-11-2015, 22:35
Some of the match data from that year just doesn't really exist. Or it's in really weird formats. Or it's just flat out wrong. (On FIRST's own pages)
Just weird that it happened over multiple events in the same year. Some FMS bug or something?
PayneTrain
13-11-2015, 02:03
Don't forget that 5012 has more championship wins than points scored in elims at champs in 2015
You must be great at parties.
runneals
13-11-2015, 02:57
I'm working on building an open data portal for my day job and it has functionality in it where you would be able to chart by columns, so you could do on the fly charting based on whatever you wanted to see (such as # of matches played, number of teams by year, a team's average event score.... Would something like that be a cool idea or something that you wouldn't be interested in? I can push it up to github as a feature request if so.
Andrew Schreiber
13-11-2015, 08:08
Just weird that it happened over multiple events in the same year. Some FMS bug or something?
Possible. Also possible that the events didn't have internet and the data was never saved. Or that it was corrupted. I mean, that was 10 years ago.
Just saying 1114, 2056, 148 and 610 can't all be in alliance #1 :yikes:
Why not? I can think of several scenarios in which that could happen.
Possible. Also possible that the events didn't have internet and the data was never saved. Or that it was corrupted. I mean, that was 10 years ago.
2005 was the first year of a new FMS. There were some issues with data reporting that year.
tindleroot
13-11-2015, 16:04
Why not? I can think of several scenarios in which that could happen.
Unless FIRST is changing alliances this year, only 3 of those 4 can be on the #1 alliance.
Unless FIRST is changing alliances this year, only 3 of those 4 can be on the #1 alliance.
I've seen 4 team alliances before as well (pssst, check your signature).
tindleroot
13-11-2015, 16:29
I've seen 4 team alliances before as well (pssst, check your signature).
Not at the Waterloo Regional, though.
Edit: Never mind. (Think before you post)
Not at the Waterloo Regional, though.
Edit: Never mind. (Think before you post)
Ontario is a strange place.
We just had an off-season event where 1310 didn't even make it to the eliminations despite being North Bay Regional winners, possessing a solid 3 tote auto, and a good landfill robot capable of putting up multiple capped, noodled 6-stacks.
Anything's possible... (except 2056 losing a regional)
2005 was the first year of a new FMS. There were some issues with data reporting that year.
FLR 2005 had a very rough event with the Hatch scoring system that year.
Thank God for Joe Ross.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.