Best in your State/Region

[Kevin Leonard]

Summer CD is boring, and these threads are less boring.

Who are the top 5 teams in your state/region:

this year by OPR?
based on this year's results at various levels?
this year overall?
during the past 5 years by OPR?
during the past 5 years by results at various levels?
during the past 5 years overall?
in terms of culture(both culture awards and your experience with the teams)?


I'll comment in a little bit with some data on NY, unless someone else wants to do it.

[jajabinx124]

Sweet thread that is indeed less boring than others!

Top 5 OPR in MN:
1) 5172, 73.85 at the Newton Division
2) 2052, 57.41 at the 10,000 Lakes Regional
3) 3130, 55.11 at the North Star Regional
4) 5434, 54.41 at the 10,000 Lakes Regional
5) 4009, 52.57 at the MN State Championship

I'll post the rest of the top 5's later today.

[wajirock]

These are the lists for Minnesota
This year by OPR
5172
2052
3130
5434
4009

Based on this year's results at various levels
2220
2502
2052
5172
3130

This year overall
2052
5172
2502
3130
2220

Past 5 years by OPR
2052
3130
5172
2175
2502

Past 5 years by results at various levels
1816
2052
3130
2512
2175

Past 5 years overall
2052
3130
2175
2502
2512

In terms of culture
2169
5172
2175
2502
1816

It's pretty interesting how the lists have a lot of the same teams on them.

[asid61]

2-5-4! 2-5-4! 2-5-4! 2-5-4!

Seriously though, for all my fanboying 1678 is starting to give them a run for their money in recent years. They have been on Einstein more often in the last 4 years, anyway. 971 has good years and bad years, but generally remain slightly behind 1678.

[ollien]

I would say 3419. Their robot for the past two years has been solid.

Plus, they pioneered the camera pole. Who could complain? :P

Also, 1796 always makes an incredible showing. Their robot this year was killer.

[MichaelBick]

2-5-4! 2-5-4! 2-5-4! 2-5-4!

Seriously though, for all my fanboying 1678 is starting to give them a run for their money in recent years. They have been on Einstein more often in the last 4 years, anyway. 971 has good years and bad years, but generally remain slightly behind 1678.

973, 3476, and 330 are all definitely in the mix too for CA.

[Bkeeneykid]

I'd post some for our little happy tribe of Kansas teams, but thankfully, someone on 1108 went ahead and did it for me. I can now officially say that I'm #4 in the state (by RP), which is a great marketing stat.

Link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QkYoDP54ra6oJLnsHx0cXZ8asTMvssb6Q9C1glyogac

[frcguy]

In Northern California: 1678, 254, and 971. All are absolutely fantastic teams with 4 Championships, multiple division wins and dozens of regional victories between them. They are all incredibly helpful and nice, and do whatever they can to help other teams.

For culture and other awards in NorCal 1868 is pretty hard to beat, having won Chairman's 5 times in their existence and many other awards.

Also, if anyone is interested I wrote a post about 1678's rise from an OK team to absolute domination. Here's the link: https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1597189&postcount=9

[Rachel Lim]

Here's some OPR stats for California. It's crazy just how dominant 254 has been (and makes me wonder: is this normal in other regions too?)


2016, max OPR:
254 - 78.9 at SVR
971 - 77.1 at Sac
1678 - 70.5 on Hopper
3309 - 62.9 at Orange County
330 - 60.0 at Ventura

2016, avg OPR:
971 - 72.0
254 - 69.4
1678 - 61.7
330 - 57.3
973 - 52.2

Avg rank by max OPR, past 5 years:
254 - 1.4 (2, 2, 1, 1, 1)
1717 - 5.3 (1, 3, 8, 9, :()
971 - 5.4 (7, 10, 6, 2, 2)
1678 - 6.8 (9, 16, 3, 3, 3)
973 - 7.6 (3, 5, 13, 11, 6)

Avg rank by avg OPR, past 5 years:
254 - 1.6 (2, 2, 1, 1, 2)
971 - 5 (7, 8, 5, 4, 1)
1678 - 5 (6, 11, 3, 2, 3)
1717 - 6.25 (1, 3, 7, 14, :()
1538 - 7 (12, 1, 9, 6, 7)

Misc notes:
- Of those 6 teams, 4 are previous world champions. 1538 and 1717 have made division finals at least once each. 254 and 1538 are also HOF teams
- Of the past 5 years, only this year (2016) had a different teams holding the top max OPR and top average OPR record
- Of the past 5 years, the top 3 teams for both max and avg OPR appear in the top 10 teams across all 5 years with one exception: 2485 ranked 2nd in both categories in 2014 but ranked 12th in max / 21st in avg
- I used the OPR data from 2834's database, which includes OPRs from divisions but not Einstein
- I excluded 2 2016 rookie teams from the top 10 avg OPR rankings (5924 at 9th, and 5818 at 11th) since I figured there wouldn't be much of a trend to see, pushing 3309 (at 12th) in
- There are a lot of teams with black as their team color, so my color coordination for the plots got a bit messed up (sorry 1671 and 3309)

Plots of the top 10 teams by average max/avg OPR rank over the past 5 years:
http://i.imgur.com/Xfqn26M.png http://i.imgur.com/t2HSNu8.png



For culture and other awards in NorCal 1868 is pretty hard to beat, having won Chairman's 5 times in their existence and many other awards.

We're honored by the mention, but 604 definitely takes the top spot for Chairman's (excluding HOF teams). I don't have award data easily accessible but I'd guess 1671, 1323, and 3256 would be strong norcal contenders, as would 2485 and 3476 for socal.

[Jay O'Donnell]

Where can one find OPR data?

[Kevin Leonard]

Best in NY in 2016:

By Average OPR:

5254 [48.6]
4006 [47.1]
870 [45.1]
3419 [40.7]
329 [40.5]

By Championship Results:

3015 [Championship Finalist as second selection]
1405 [Championship Finalist as backup bot]
694 [Einstein Quarterfinals as captain]
1511 [Einstein Quarterfinals as backup bot]
[TIE] 5254/329 [Division Finals as backup bot]

By Championship Selection Order:

639 [Sixth Alliance Captain]
3419 [Sixth Overall Selection]
333 [Seventh Alliance Captain]
694 [Eighth Alliance Captain]
229 [Eighth Overall Selection]

By Championship Seed:

639 [6]
694 [8]
333 [10]
229 [13]
329 [14]

By Regional Results:

20 [#6 Seed and Winner, #7 Seed and Finalist]
1126 [#1 Seed and Winner, #14 Seed and Semifinalist]
5254 [#2 Seed and Finalist, #1 Seed and Semifinalist]
694 [#8 Seed and Winner, #36 Seed and Quarterfinalist]
3419 [#3 Seed and Finalist, #5 Seed and Semifinalist]


In my opinion, Overall:

5254
694
3419
20
2791


Best in NY the past 5 years:

By OPR:

1507 [Average NY OPR Rank 9.6]
329 [Average NY OPR Rank 10]
5254* [Average NY OPR Rank 10.7]
3015 [Average NY OPR Rank 12.8]
340 [Average NY OPR Rank 17.4]

*5254 has only been around for 3 of the 5 years in question.
By Championship Results:

3015 [Einstein Finalist 2016 and Division Finalist 2015]
20 [Einstein Quarterfinals 2015, Division Quarters 2013, 2014, 2016]
639 [Division Finals 2012, Division Semifinals 2016]
694 [Einstein Quarters 2016]
[TIE] 3419 [Division Semifinals 2016, Division Quarterfinals 2015] / 340 [Division Semifinals 2015, Division Quarterfinals 2014]

By Regional Results:

20 [5 Regional Wins, 3 Finalists]
340 [3 Regional Wins, 2 Finalists]
3015 [2 Regional Wins, 4 Finalists]
1507 [3 Regional Wins, 1 Finalist]
1126 [2 Regional Wins, 1 Finalist]

Overall:

3015
20
1507
694
340


Culture:

1511
340
694
329
229

As much as possible of this is objective, but some is obviously subjective, and judgement calls are necessary with any sort of list like this.

[jajabinx124]

I'll post the rest of the top 5's later today.

Here they are!

By Championship Results/Performance:
1) 2052, Division W
2) 2502, Division F
3) 5172, Division SF
4) 3130, Division SF
5) 4009, Division SF

By Championship Selection Order for MN:
1) 5172, 3rd overall pick
2) 2823, 4th seed captain
3) 2052/3130 (tie), 4th overall pick
4) 2987, 8th seed captain
5) 4607, 9th overall

By Championship Rank:
1) 2823, ranked 4th
2) 2052, ranked 8th
3) 3130, ranked 9th
4) 5172, ranked 10th
5) 2987, ranked 11th

By Regional Robot Results:
1) 5172, Regional F and W
2) 2052, Regional F and W
3) 4009, Regional W and SF
4) 2502, Regional W and SF
5) 2883/3130, Regional QF and W/Regional W and QF

By Regional/Championship Award Result:
1) 2220, 2 judged awards at champs, 2 judged awards at regional, WFFA, and chairman's
2) 2052, 1 judged award at regional and chairman's
3) 4607, WFFA and chairman's
4) 2502, 2 Engineering Inspiration awards
5) 4009, 1 Engineering Inspiration award

IMO, overall for 2016 (not soley based on robots):

1) 2220
2) 5172
3) 2052
4) 4607
5) 2502

Past 5 years on OPR:
1) 2169
2) 5172
3) 2052
4) 2175
5) 3130

Past 5 years championship results:

1) 2052, 1 Division W and 3 Division QF's
2) 2169, 1 Division F, 1 Division SF, 1 Division QF
3) 2512, 1 Division W and 1 Division QF
4) 2175/2502, 1 Division F and 1 Division QF
5) 3130, 2 Division SF's

Past 5 years regional robot results:
1) 2052, 5 Regional W's, 4 Regional F's, 1 Regional SF
2) 2502, 3 Regional W's, 1 Regional F, 5 Regional SF
3) 3130, 3 Regional W's, 1 Regional F, 1 Regional SF, 4 Regional QF's
4) 2169, 3 Regional W's, 1 Regional F, 1 Regional SF, 4 Regional QF's
5) 2175, 3 Regional W's, 1 Regional SF, 5 Regional QF's

Past 5 years regional award results:
1) 1816, 3 Chairman's and 2 EI's
2) 2220, 2 Chairman's and 2 EI's
3) 2169, 2 Chairman's and 1 EI
4) 3630, 1 Chairman's and 1 EI
5) 2052/2526/4607 (3 way tie), 1 Chairman's


IMO, Past 5 years overall:
1) 1816
2) 2220
3) 2052
4) 2169
5) 2512

[GKrotkov]

Who are the top 5 teams in your state/region:

this year by OPR?



I reject your statistics and substitute my own!

Seriously, though, I was playing around with using the t-distribution* to predict matches and/or order sort teams so as to make for faster picklisting so it's far more convenient for me to talk about MAR using T-scores to back me up.

T-scores from MAR Champs based off of Dawgma's scouting data gives me,

For teleop high goals:
1) 341, t = 3.6810
2) 225, t = 2.9516
3) 3314, t = 2.9507
4) 869, t = 2.7825
5) 5895, t = 2.3754

For teleop low goals:
1) 25, t = 7.6629 (they destroyed)
2) 1257, t = 4.6518
3) 708, t = 4.5852
4) 5113, t = 4.2006
5) 1923, t = 3.5787

For overall boulder volume:
1) 25, t = 6.3270
2) 708, t = 3.2628
3) 5895, t = 3.2018
4) 3314, t = 2.8022
5) 2590, t = 2.7175

Of course, I'm still playing around and this might change. Still working on stuff.

* T, not Z, because n !>=30, so CLT for means won't apply.

[M217]

Best in NY in 2016:

By Average OPR:

5254
4006
870
3419
329

By Championship Results:

3015
1405
694
1511
5254/329 [TIE]

By Championship Selection Order:

639
3419
333
694
1796

By Championship Seed:

639
694
333
229
329

By Regional Results:

20
5254
694
1126
3419


In my opinion, Overall:

5254
694
3419
20
2791


Best in NY the past 5 years:

By OPR:

1507
329
5254*
3015
340

By Championship Results:

3015
20
639
694
3419

Overall:

3015
20
1507
694
340


As much as possible of this is objective, but some is obviously subjective, and judgement calls are necessary with any sort of list like this.

This is a really good list I think, good enough that I don't think it's necessary to post my own since it matches up 90%+. Your team's been doing an amazing job the past few seasons, and your work has honestly blown me away -- keep up the good work!

[Jay O'Donnell]

Best in NY in 2016:

By Average OPR:

5254 [48.6]
4006 [47.1]
870 [45.1]
3419 [40.7]
329 [40.5]

By Championship Results:

3015 [Championship Finalist as second selection]
1405 [Championship Finalist as backup bot]
694 [Einstein Quarterfinals as captain]
1511 [Einstein Quarterfinals as backup bot]
[TIE] 5254/329 [Division Finals as backup bot]

By Championship Selection Order:

639 [Sixth Alliance Captain]
3419 [Sixth Overall Selection]
333 [Seventh Alliance Captain]
694 [Eighth Alliance Captain]
1796 [Twelfth Overall Selection]

By Championship Seed:

639 [6]
694 [8]
333 [10]
229 [13]
329 [14]

By Regional Results:

20 [1 Winner, 1 Finalist]
5254 [1 Winner, 1 #1 Seed and Semifinalist]
694 [1 Winner, 1 Quarterfinalist]
1126 [1 Winner, 1 Quarterfinalist]
3419 [1 Finalist, 1 #5 Seed and Semifinalist]


In my opinion, Overall:

5254
694
3419
20
2791


Best in NY the past 5 years:

By OPR:

1507
329
5254*
3015
340

By Championship Results:

3015 [Einstein Finalist 2016 and Division Finalist 2015]
20 [Einstein Quarterfinals 2015, Division Quarters 2013, 2014, 2016]
639 [Division Finals 2012, Division Semifinals 2016]
694 [Einstein Quarters 2016]
[TIE] 3419 [Division Semifinals 2016, Division Quarterfinals 2015] / 340 [Division Semifinals 2015, Division Quarterfinals 2014]

Overall:

3015
20
1507
694
340


As much as possible of this is objective, but some is obviously subjective, and judgement calls are necessary with any sort of list like this.

Nitpicking but 229 should be 5th on the championship picks list since we were 8th overall pick on Newton.

Not saying we should've been, but we were.

[A Mountain Man]

Hello again, all! I've missed you. Let's take a little detour.

I was wondering this same question to myself right after the championships: "What mountain teams were the best this year, and in years past?" However, I got carried away and I took my question further, instead asking "What team would be the best if the entire Rocky Mountain Region was in the district format during 2016?" So, I calculated by hand the number of district points each team would have received if the district system were present in the region this year. (I'm a mountain man. I don't know how to make software do things for me.) I have organized the list by the tiebreaker rules, and have come up with a very interesting result. You can find that document here. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OcV2ANxscYdjDjIX0esHLgZpT_JRqRnxMbNU5FyaVq8/edit#gid=203313103)

A few important things about the document:

All the teams with a green background would have qualified for Championships, as they are the top 20%. This, of course, does not factor in the recipients of the Rookie All Star, Engineering Inspiration, or Chairman's Award at a theoretical district championship, nor does it estimate what teams would have qualified for a district championship. This list also does not factor in the estimated number of points from a district championship, as one did not happen.
I have finally decided on a geographic area to monitor, and it does/will not include the PNW region or British Columbia. That is why they are not present.
I am not perfect. This list may be incorrect in some of the ordering.

I hope you all enjoy this interesting thought experiment. I'll be back soon with the answers to the main questions and more data! Stay tuned.

[Billfred]

Summer CD is boring, and these threads are less boring.

Who are the top 5 teams in your state/region:

this year by OPR?
based on this year's results at various levels?
this year overall?
during the past 5 years by OPR?
during the past 5 years by results at various levels?
during the past 5 years overall?
in terms of culture(both culture awards and your experience with the teams)?


I'll comment in a little bit with some data on NY, unless someone else wants to do it.
I'm basing the South Carolina OPR data off of Palmetto; 1293 and 1319 weren't there, but neither got above .500 at any event during the season.

OPR:
1) 4451
2) 1876
3) 1102
4) 3490
5) 343

Results at various levels/overall:
1) 4451 (won Palmetto, Palmetto EI, Orlando Innovation in Control and QF, Carver Imagery Award and QF)
2) 3490 (won Rocket City with Robonauts and Bomb Squad--but hey, they did enable 100% capture along the way)
3) 343 (Palmetto finalists, Rocket City QFs)
4) 1876 (Palmetto QFs and 8 seed, Orlando semis and 7 seed)
5) 1758 (Palmetto #3 seed and QFs)

Truth be told, that list is pretty close for all the other ones too. 343 has a Championship subdivision finalist in 2015 that would push them up a bit more (fourth robot, never played, but scoreboard), but they were also off the pace for a few years going back. 4451's been on a hot streak where they've been head and shoulders above everyone else in the state--one of three teams to win Palmetto back to back, WFFA, EI, RAS literally everywhere they went--and with them helping to start a team the next county over I'm on the lookout for them. 3490 is always a threat in the state, especially at SCRIW, but just now broke through by winning the last-pick lottery (which I have absolutely zero room to hate on). 1876 never gets any press or buzz, but somehow they pull a rabbit out of their hats and gets in contention even at overstuffed events like Palmetto and Orlando.

[asid61]

973, 3476, and 330 are all definitely in the mix too for CA.

Very true. :o I have a very North-specific worldview, being from lower norcal myself.

[Kevin Leonard]

Nitpicking but 229 should be 5th on the championship picks list since we were 8th overall pick on Newton.

Not saying we should've been, but we were.

You're correct. I recalled that 229 got picked, but I assumed it was much later in the draft. Updated as such.

[Brian Maher]

I'll post my analysis on MAR and New York sometime in the next day. In the meantime, I have one question about a response.



For teleop low goals:
1) 25, t = 7.6629 (they destroyed)
2) 1257, t = 4.6518
3) 708, t = 4.5852
4) 5113, t = 4.2006
5) 1923, t = 3.5787

For overall boulder volume:
1) 25, t = 6.3270
2) 708, t = 3.2628
3) 5895, t = 3.2018
4) 3314, t = 2.8022
5) 2590, t = 2.7175



How come 1257 is #2 on the low goal list, ahead of 708, but not even top 5 for boulder volume when 708 didn't score high? (or at least, not that I saw) Not that I take issue with it, data is data, but I'm genuinely curious how this result is possible.

Your analysis is pretty spot on. T/Z-scores are a nifty stat for this. I look forward to seeing how it compares to my own analysis.

[GKrotkov]

How come 1257 is #2 on the low goal list, ahead of 708, but not even top 5 for boulder volume when 708 didn't score high? (or at least, not that I saw) Not that I take issue with it, data is data, but I'm genuinely curious how this result is possible.


Thanks for asking! Yeah, you can also see a similar effect with 5895 coming in ahead of 3314 in overall boulder volume but behind in teleop high goals.

When I was working on it initially, I realized that consistency was overvalued in the standard error statistic*, and a team that was consistently slightly better than the average team came out far ahead of everyone else, even those that had small inconsistencies but were generally better (significantly higher average.) This is because using the t-distribution isn't precisely telling us how good a team is, but rather how unlikely their performance is given that we assume that they are the average team.

The way I solved this is by restricting analyses of individual fields to a select set of teams rather than all teams at the competition, which raised the average comparatively and reduced the overvaluing of absurdly consistent teams. I kept the ones with all teams analyzed, but honestly reality-checking the latter made me realize that restricting the number of teams for more specific fields could be helpful. For example, I did not include 1712's data in the high goal t-score calculations. This caused averages to change and thus some of the strange cardinal results you see in the final order sort. So, in the example of 708 and 1257: 708 has a higher average and higher standard error than 1257, so, with the low goal specific analysis the higher general average resulting from eliminating teams that aren't competitive low goalers makes standard error more important and thus 1257 does better relative to 708 in the low-goal specific one rather than the boulder volume one.

* at least, overvalued for my purposes in picklisting.

[Karibou]

The way I solved this is by restricting analyses of individual fields to a select set of teams rather than all teams at the competition, which raised the average comparatively and reduced the overvaluing of absurdly consistent teams. I kept the ones with all teams analyzed, but honestly reality-checking the latter made me realize that restricting the number of teams for more specific fields could be helpful. For example, I did not include 1712's data in the high goal t-score calculations. This caused averages to change and thus some of the strange cardinal results you see in the final order sort. So, in the example of 708 and 1257: 708 has a higher average and higher standard error than 1257, so, with the low goal specific analysis the higher general average resulting from eliminating teams that aren't competitive low goalers makes standard error more important and thus 1257 does better relative to 708 in the low-goal specific one rather than the boulder volume one.

* at least, overvalued for my purposes in picklisting.

How did you determine the cutoffs for which teams to include for each analysis? I imagine it was pretty clear-cut for high goal scoring since that was an "either you can do it or you can't" ability for the most part, but where did you draw the line for low goal scorers? I know 25 was good, but is their t-score so dominant compared to the rest of the teams because they were so good, or because there was a wider spread in low goal scoring ability, lowering the average compared to how well 25 was performing? (does that question make sense? Statistics really isn't my strong suit)

Also, is this data from just quals, just eliminations, or both?

[ezygmont708]

Thanks for asking! Yeah, you can also see a similar effect with 5895 coming in ahead of 3314 in overall boulder volume but behind in teleop high goals.

When I was working on it initially, I realized that consistency was overvalued in the standard error statistic*, and a team that was consistently slightly better than the average team came out far ahead of everyone else, even those that had small inconsistencies but were generally better (significantly higher average.) This is because using the t-distribution isn't precisely telling us how good a team is, but rather how unlikely their performance is given that we assume that they are the average team.

The way I solved this is by restricting analyses of individual fields to a select set of teams rather than all teams at the competition, which raised the average comparatively and reduced the overvaluing of absurdly consistent teams. I kept the ones with all teams analyzed, but honestly reality-checking the latter made me realize that restricting the number of teams for more specific fields could be helpful. For example, I did not include 1712's data in the high goal t-score calculations. This caused averages to change and thus some of the strange cardinal results you see in the final order sort. So, in the example of 708 and 1257: 708 has a higher average and higher standard error than 1257, so, with the low goal specific analysis the higher general average resulting from eliminating teams that aren't competitive low goalers makes standard error more important and thus 1257 does better relative to 708 in the low-goal specific one rather than the boulder volume one.

* at least, overvalued for my purposes in picklisting.

Gabe,

Do you have stats for climbs?

Thanks,

Z

[Kevin Leonard]

One more list I played with- Sorted by Average OPR Rank during the past 5 years while removing each team's worst year:

5254* [1]
1507 [4.75]
3015 [7.75]
340 [8]
20 [9]


*Now 5254 only has two years to calculate from, but whatever.

[Chris is me]

One more list I played with- Sorted by Average OPR Rank during the past 5 years while removing each team's worst year:

5254* [1]
1507 [4.75]
3015 [7.75]
340 [8]
20 [9]


*Now 5254 only has two years to calculate from, but whatever.

Okay dude now you're just purposefully creating ranking algorithms that make 5254 look good :P

[GKrotkov]

How did you determine the cutoffs for which teams to include for each analysis? I imagine it was pretty clear-cut for high goal scoring since that was an "either you can do it or you can't" ability for the most part, but where did you draw the line for low goal scorers? I know 25 was good, but is their t-score so dominant compared to the rest of the teams because they were so good, or because there was a wider spread in low goal scoring ability, lowering the average compared to how well 25 was performing? (does that question make sense? Statistics really isn't my strong suit)

Also, is this data from just quals, just eliminations, or both?

I threw out any team that had an average low goal score of <1. I don't have any insightful reason for that, but I think that it's fair to assume that a competitive low goaler at MAR Champs will score one boulder per match, on average. There weren't any of these, but if I found a team with a standard error of 0, then I'd have to throw them out, too. Not for any great reason, but just because the formula for t-scores divides by the standard error.

The question about 25 makes perfect sense - and it's a really good one, too. It has a multifaceted answer. For one, the t-distribution flattens out near the extremes. That means that you have to increase relatively more t-score to gain a similar amount of area under the curve. That is, t-scores don't scale linearly. A team with a t-score of 4 isn't twice as good (or even twice as unlikely) as a team with a t-score of 2. As for the spread of teams, eliminating teams with <1 low goal average really tightened the spread, rather than widening it. I haven't tried to prove it, but I imagine that this could help 25 by reducing the margins between everyone else's average and the population average. I do think that even with those mitigating factors, 25's margin over everyone else is still remarkable.

This is from qualifications only. Dawgma reduced our scouting to a watchlist after we got 9 matches for each team, but I've filled out some of the scouting via recordings since then.

Do you have stats for climbs?


I have the data that Dawgma & 708 collected from MAR Champs, but it'd be kind of pointless to use the t-distribution on scales, since you won't do more than one per match. Probably just as good to look at the ratio of successful scales to attempted scales. That gives us:
1/2/3) 708 [7/7], 341 [5/5], and 869 [6/6] tie with a perfect record.
4) 25 with 8/9
5) 365 with 6/7

Major caveat there, though. I didn't do the nonboulder scouting to fill out the scales, so we only have a limited # of matches to get that data from. Also, since 25 was on our watchlist we watched them more, more chance for us to catch them in a bad match. If someone else has different data, I'd go with that.

[Brian Maher]

Gabe,

Do you have stats for climbs?

Thanks,

Z

If someone else has different data, I'd go with that.

Here's what 1257's data says on scale rate (9-12 matches observed for all teams):

5401 (100.0%)
25 (78.5%)
4573 (70.0%)
708 (66.7%)
341 (64.3%)


Here's the top five for average endgame points (scales + challenges):

5401 (15.0)
25 (12.9)
869 (11.4)
341 (11.1)
4573 (11.0)


If anyone else has stats requests from MAR CMP, feel free to ask and I'll see what I can do.

[Gregor]

One more list I played with- Sorted by Average OPR Rank during the past 5 years while removing each team's worst year:

5254* [1]
1507 [4.75]
3015 [7.75]
340 [8]
20 [9]


*Now 5254 only has two years to calculate from, but whatever.

Are you a meme or is this a real post.

[Whatever]

Here they are!

By Championship Selection Order for MN:
1) 5172, 3rd overall pick
2) 2823, 4th seed captain
3) 2052/3130 (tie), 4th overall pick
4) 2987, 8th seed captain
5) 4607, 9th overall

By Championship Rank:
1) 2823, ranked 4th
2) 2052, ranked 8th
3) 3130, ranked 9th
4) 5172, ranked 10th
5) 2987, ranked 11th


2987 is flying under your radar.
Quote is editted to add 2987

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Hello again, all! I've missed you. Let's take a little detour.

I was wondering this same question to myself right after the championships: "What mountain teams were the best this year, and in years past?" However, I got carried away and I took my question further, instead asking "What team would be the best if the entire Rocky Mountain Region was in the district format during 2016?" So, I calculated by hand the number of district points each team would have received if the district system were present in the region this year. (I'm a mountain man. I don't know how to make software do things for me.) I have organized the list by the tiebreaker rules, and have come up with a very interesting result. You can find that document here. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OcV2ANxscYdjDjIX0esHLgZpT_JRqRnxMbNU5FyaVq8/edit#gid=203313103)

A few important things about the document:

All the teams with a green background would have qualified for Championships, as they are the top 20%. This, of course, does not factor in the recipients of the Rookie All Star, Engineering Inspiration, or Chairman's Award at a theoretical district championship, nor does it estimate what teams would have qualified for a district championship. This list also does not factor in the estimated number of points from a district championship, as one did not happen.
I have finally decided on a geographic area to monitor, and it does/will not include the PNW region or British Columbia. That is why they are not present.
I am not perfect. This list may be incorrect in some of the ordering.

I hope you all enjoy this interesting thought experiment. I'll be back soon with the answers to the main questions and more data! Stay tuned.

I think the list would be more accurate if you took the average of the events each team did or double the total points if a team only attended one event. As it stands now, a team that only attended one event is below where they should be.

[Ben Martin]

I can't remember if this originally came from Antonio or Scott, but this district point spreadsheet is pretty good at reflecting the most successful teams competition-wise in MAR over the past 5 years. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s087OqNmn4xS_coJCsqX8bFfSPTKDocORiikkBvkXiE/edit#gid=1928859039) 341 might be a couple spots low, since they had a great robot in 2013 and didn't attend MAR Champs that year (they were the #1 ranked team in MAR going into the event).

[jajabinx124]

2987 is flying under your radar.
Quote is editted to add 2987

Oh shoot, thanks for correcting me. I just remembered they were alliance captains on Galileo!

[Kevin Leonard]

Okay dude now you're just purposefully creating ranking algorithms that make 5254 look good :P

It was more that I noticed that a bunch of good teams had one bad year pulling them down, like 20's 2012, 340's 2016, 639's 2015, and I wondered what it would be like if you removed the one bad year for each team. I considered not removing a year for 5254 as well, but I thought that might be a weird exception to make. Although I understand why it makes it look like I'm padding 5254's stats.

For the record, in the past 5 years, 1507 was the #1 ranked team by OPR twice, 5254 was twice, and 20 was once.
1507 has maintained an awesome amount of consistency in that even in their worst years they find a way to be a contender, and in their good years they dominate.

[Richard Wallace]

Okay dude now you're just purposefully creating ranking algorithms that make 5254 look good :PNo need to hype 5254. :rolleyes: Their performance speaks for itself.

If hype you must, ask, "Which NY team would have earned the most points at IRI, if IRI were a district competition?"

[A Mountain Man]

I think the list would be more accurate if you took the average of the events each team did or double the total points if a team only attended one event. As it stands now, a team that only attended one event is below where they should be.

I hadn't thought about that. I'll see what it looks like if I did.

[Chris is me]

No need to hype 5254. :rolleyes: Their performance speaks for itself.

If hype you must, ask, "Which NY team would have earned the most points at IRI, if IRI were a district competition?"

Kevin knows I have a deep love for 5254; they're like 2791's best friend! Lots of information sharing between the two teams this year. I just think, let the performances speak for themselves, you know? Kevin, everyone who has their finger on the pulse of competitive FRC (the kind of people who read summer CD) knows that 5254 is the real deal. We get it, you iterate, etc.

Back on topic, I've been meaning to compile stats for CT, but I don't know what kind of convenient OPR calculator everyone is using these days. Could anyone supply some links to resources I could use to gather this information? Or is it all in the cloud / online somewhere now?

[Kevin Leonard]

Kevin knows I have a deep love for 5254; they're like 2791's best friend! Lots of information sharing between the two teams this year. I just think, let the performances speak for themselves, you know? Kevin, everyone who has their finger on the pulse of competitive FRC (the kind of people who read summer CD) knows that 5254 is the real deal. We get it, you iterate, etc.

Back on topic, I've been meaning to compile stats for CT, but I don't know what kind of convenient OPR calculator everyone is using these days. Could anyone supply some links to resources I could use to gather this information? Or is it all in the cloud / online somewhere now?

Top teams that consistently choke in eliminations in Western NY:

5254

Top teams that have seeded first at Finger Lakes twice and failed to take home the banner:

5254

Sure there are a lot of lists I could make where 5254 comes in first. :rolleyes:

[hutchMN]

Top teams that consistently choke in eliminations in Western NY:

5254

Top teams that have seeded first at Finger Lakes twice and failed to take home the banner:

5254

Sure there are a lot of lists I could make where 5254 comes in first. :rolleyes:
I can join the club too :cool:
Teams that worked for a grand total of 1 match before elims, but still got picked in the top 4, and then broke down again during elims:
1) 2502

[SpaceBiz]

I can join the club too :cool:
Teams that worked for a grand total of 1 match before elims, but still got picked in the top 4, and then broke down again during elims:
1) 2502

Alliance captains in CHS that won an event and did not go to champs.
1) 2537

[Theseusgoats]

I ranked the the top 10 in Indiana over the three district events as well as the championship event. I only counted those who ranked in the top 15 for each one and considered the OPR relative to the event. Also, the Number 1 ranked by OPR was given a slight bump. In order...

1501- By far the most consistent, got OPR 1 in 3 events
1024- Consitently got 2nd in OPR
4103- Very consistent in top 5 OPR
4982- Had a bit of a bad event with the State Championship but performed well at Walker Warren getting OPR 1
234- Consistent top OPR
135- Under the Radar team this year which did very well
1747- Suffered due to their State Championship performance
868- Great team this year, had a poor 1st event for their standards
71- Suffered due to a bad State Championship performance
461- Didn't get in the top 15 for one of their events but they were top 10 for state and walker warren, and went to the finals in walker warren. (kind of a writer's pick)

[Cothron Theiss]

Where can one find OPR data?

I'll echo his question, since I'm curious as well. Are you getting this through BlueAlliance, and if so, how can I get ahold of that data as well?

[Rachel Lim]

Here's more data! (since you can never have too much data)

Instead of just looking at OPR rank, I graphed it according to standard deviations above above the mean. 254 once again dominates, with several records: the only team with an average above 4, 1 of 4 teams to break 4 in a single year, 1 of 2 teams to break 4 in both categories (max/avg OPR), and the only team to break 5 (and even 6 in avg OPR).

Each category includes the 10 teams with the highest average (not highest rank as previously used). For the average, I used only CA teams, and the relevant stats (i.e. for max OPR, the average was the average of all max OPRs)

I think this is somewhat more representative than just rank (since it adjusts for how far above average you are), but it does make the graphs messier:

http://i.imgur.com/z25EAuc.png

The top team per year in CA (standard deviations above average, max OPR, (CA data set only) (all teams)):
2012: 1717 (4.51) (4.77)
2013: 1538 (3.97) (4.71)
2014: 254 (4.01) (3.52)
2015: 254 (5.86) (6.57)
2016: 971 (4.06) (4.15)

Top teams in the world (data set now includes all teams):
2012: 2056 (5.20)
2013: 987 (4.93)
2014: 1114 (4.21)
2015: 254 (6.57)
2016: 148 (4.35)

Teams for 2008 to 2011 are 1114, 71, 67, and 111, which gives Ontario a third of the top spots in the past 9 years.

[Rachel Lim]

I'll echo his question, since I'm curious as well. Are you getting this through BlueAlliance, and if so, how can I get ahold of that data as well?


Back on topic, I've been meaning to compile stats for CT, but I don't know what kind of convenient OPR calculator everyone is using these days. Could anyone supply some links to resources I could use to gather this information? Or is it all in the cloud / online somewhere now?

I'll echo his question, since I'm curious as well. Are you getting this through BlueAlliance, and if so, how can I get ahold of that data as well?

Sorry for the double post. To address questions about getting OPR data, these are the two sources that I know of (besides calculating it yourself).

I personally prefer 2834's database since it's in excel and already nicely formatted:
2016: https://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/3242?
2008-2015: https://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2174

TBA also has OPRs calculated per event, accessible via their API:
http://www.thebluealliance.com/apidocs

[JEE89]

In my state, CT, the best team is undoubtedly team #195, consistent every year, never is lacking, etc.

Within New England, however, the best team is between 195 and 1519. 1519 is always good, just like 195 and honestly it depends on the year which one of these 2 comes out on top within our region.

[Hitchhiker 42]

In my state, CT, the best team is undoubtedly team #195, consistent every year, never is lacking, etc.

Within New England, however, the best team is between 195 and 1519. 1519 is always good, just like 195 and honestly it depends on the year which one of these 2 comes out on top within our region.

To CT, I'd add 230 for Culture awards. Overall NE, don't forget about 125.

[RoboChair]

http://i.imgur.com/z25EAuc.png


I really appreciate the little details you went to the trouble of using for your graph. The team colors based graph lines are fantastic!

[Kevin Leonard]

Best in NY the past 5 years:
By Regional Results:

20 [5 Regional Wins, 3 Finalists]
340 [3 Regional Wins, 4 Finalists]
3015 [2 Regional Wins, 4 Finalists]
1507 [3 Regional Wins, 1 Finalist]
1126 [2 Regional Wins, 1 Finalist]



I mistakenly wrote that 340 had two Finalist appearances, when they had four. 2012 Buckeye, 2014 FLR, 2015 FLR, 2016 FLR.

[page2067]

Inspired by Rachel's plot.

Here is New England district, Max OPR std deviations above mean plot, all 3 years, 20 or so teams ( top OPR teams of 2016).

Data is from Team 2834 database. (I think the bible?)

Only includes teams that have all 3 years - (sorry Mobius, and other emerging teams).

Of course OPR doesn't equate to blue banners.... OPR is OPR.

[JEE89]

Inspired by Rachel's plot.

Here is New England district, Max OPR std deviations above mean plot, all 3 years, 20 or so teams ( top OPR teams of 2016).

Data is from Team 2834 database. (I think the bible?)

Only includes teams that have all 3 years - (sorry Mobius, and other emerging teams).

Of course OPR doesn't equate to blue banners.... OPR is OPR.

This is actually really interesting, how did you make this graph?

[lethc]

1. 1986
2. 1730
3. 1806
4. 4522
5. 1775

[lynca]

Top 10 for Texas (robot performance over last 5 years)

1. 118
2. 148
3. 624
4. 1477
5. 3310
6. 2468
7. 1296
8. 2848
9. 4587
10. 4063

[Michael Blake]

Top 10 for Texas (robot performance over last 5 years)

1. 118
2. 148
3. 624
4. 1477
5. 3310
6. 2468
7. 1296
8. 2848
9. 4587
10. 4063

Andrew... by Blue Banner count? What method are you using to come up with this list?

--Michael

[lynca]

Andrew... by Blue Banner count? What method are you using to come up with this list?

--Michael

A mix of OPR and ranking

[Monochron]

Seeing as this thread is filled with great data attempting to distill great teams, I'll add my own completely subjective rankings for the North Carolina teams! In no particular order, I hold these 5 teams as some of the mostly consistently strong in the NC District:

1533 - Triple Strange
900 - The Zebracorns
3506 - Yeti
2655 - The Flying Platypi
2059 - The Hitchhikers

If I didn't have to limit the list to 5, I might also throw in*:
2642 - Pitt Pirates
4935 - T-Rex
587 - Hedgehogs

* (highly technical note): this list omits some talented up and comers who just haven't been around long enough.

[Richard Wallace]

Who'll take a whack at Michigan? :rolleyes:

[Kellen Hill]

Strictly looking at OPR for 2016, these would be the top 5 teams in Georgia:

2415
1261
1746
4468
2974

[Jcarbon]

Who'll take a whack at Michigan? :rolleyes:

I'll wait for someone else to do it, then disagree with whatever they say. :p

[tr6scott]

Who'll take a whack at Michigan? :rolleyes:

Quick and Dirty top 20 in Michigan.
I have a sheet I use that looks at top finishing teams in the state, and I use this data as a power ranking for the district competitions.

So based on 5 years as requested... so if you didn't exist for 5 years, you are ineligible... 190 teams in 2012 are eligible 411 teams in 2016, means over half the teams that exist in the state, are not eligible in this calc...

Really makes you want to spend time and crank out metrics to justify rankings, but hey here you go. :)

Based on final FiM ranking data and the last 5 years, here is the top 20 teams in the state... or 1/2 of the state that currently have teams?

[Ed Law]

Quick and Dirty top 20 in Michigan.
I have a sheet I use that looks at top finishing teams in the state, and I use this data as a power ranking for the district competitions.

So based on 5 years as requested... so if you didn't exist for 5 years, you are ineligible... 190 teams in 2012 are eligible 411 teams in 2016, means over half the teams that exist in the state, are not eligible in this calc...

Really makes you want to spend time and crank out metrics to justify rankings, but hey here you go. :)

Based on final FiM ranking data and the last 5 years, here is the top 20 teams in the state... or 1/2 of the state that currently have teams?
What does a "0" mean in ranking?

[tr6scott]

What does a "0" mean in ranking?

It means my [MATCH,INDEX] for 2016 in my worksheet, was looking at the line below RUSH, instead of starting with RUSH being ranked 1 this year. :)

Good catch, I don't think it changed the ranking, but I did fix and update the graphic. :)

[bobbysq]

#1 - 525

#2-11 - don't know much about ranking, just that 525 is the best

[Citrus Dad]

Here's more data! (since you can never have too much data)

Instead of just looking at OPR rank, I graphed it according to standard deviations above above the mean. 254 once again dominates, with several records: the only team with an average above 4, 1 of 4 teams to break 4 in a single year, 1 of 2 teams to break 4 in both categories (max/avg OPR), and the only team to break 5 (and even 6 in avg OPR).

Each category includes the 10 teams with the highest average (not highest rank as previously used). For the average, I used only CA teams, and the relevant stats (i.e. for max OPR, the average was the average of all max OPRs)

I think this is somewhat more representative than just rank (since it adjusts for how far above average you are), but it does make the graphs messier:

http://i.imgur.com/z25EAuc.png

The top team per year in CA (standard deviations above average, max OPR, (CA data set only) (all teams)):
2012: 1717 (4.51) (4.77)
2013: 1538 (3.97) (4.71)
2014: 254 (4.01) (3.52)
2015: 254 (5.86) (6.57)
2016: 971 (4.06) (4.15)

Top teams in the world (data set now includes all teams):
2012: 2056 (5.20)
2013: 987 (4.93)
2014: 1114 (4.21)
2015: 254 (6.57)
2016: 148 (4.35)

Teams for 2008 to 2011 are 1114, 71, 67, and 111, which gives Ontario a third of the top spots in the past 9 years.

Nice job, but apparently 1678 didn't play enough in 2016 to generate an average OPR (although we did have a maximum)...

[Rachel Lim]

Nice job, but apparently 1678 didn't play enough in 2016 to generate an average OPR (although we did have a maximum)...

Yeah, 3 regionals, a division, and Einstein isn't enough, stop slacking off! :P

Ugh, the mistakes I make by doing this by hand...

I think I copied an old graph and somehow swapped 1678 with 1717, losing your 2016 data in the process. Anyway, here's a fixed graph. Hopefully I didn't managed to mess something else up.

http://i.imgur.com/eum5QvC.jpg

[TAlholm]

Could someone do an in depth list for CT? It's hard to remember how many good teams there are. I know OPR is OPR, but in no way does it do CT or NE in fact any justice.

[Golfer4646]

Who are the top 5 teams in your state/region:

this year by OPR?

#1 - 525

#2-11 - don't know much about ranking, just that 525 is the best

The top 5 teams from Iowa during the Stronghold season, as ordered by maximum OPR at a single regional or at Champs:

#1 - 525 (Swartdogs) with a 53.85 OPR at the Iowa Regional.
#2 - 5576 (Team Terminator) with a 48.28 OPR at the Minnesota North Star Regional.
#3 - 967 (Iron Lions) with a 37.98 OPR at the Minnesota North Star Regional.
#4 - 4646 (Team ASAP) with a 36.57 OPR at the Central Illinois Regional.
#5 - 167 (Children of the Corn) with a 36.53 OPR at the Minnesota North Star Regional.

Honorable Mention: 3928 (Team Neutrino) with a 34.95 OPR at the Minnesota North Star Regional.


Edit: Average OPR during 2016 season:
#1 - 525 with an average OPR of 49.71 during the 2016 season.
#2 - 5576 with an average OPR of 39.55 during the 2016 season.
#3 - 4646 with an average OPR of 34.86 during the 2016 season.
#4 - 3928 with an average OPR of 32.30 during the 2016 season.
#5 - 167 with an average OPR of 31.32 during the 2016 season.

[bstew]

I was going to do a bunch of rankings based on different statistics for Iowa, but Golfer4646 beat me to OPR. :)

Some statistics I used to rank 2016 robot performance:

Highest Rank During Season (2016)
1. 525 (2)
2. 4646 (6)
3. 5576 (10)
4. 167 (12)
5. 967 (14)

Highest Pick # (2016)
1. 525 (2)
2. 5576 (4)
3. 3928 (8)
4. 4646 (9)
5. 967 (10)

Maximum OPR (2016) (I know this has already been posted, but for the sake of having all Iowa rankings in one post, I will repeat it)
1. 525 (53.85)
2. 5576 (48.28)
3. 967 (37.98)
4. 4646 (36.57)
5. 167 (36.53)

Maximum CCWM (2016)
1. 525 (33.70)
2. 5576 (21.92)
3. 3928 (12.69)
4. 4646 (10.83)
5. 167 (10.33)

I also looked at over the past 5 years how many awards teams had won.

Awards (past 5 years)
1. 525 (16)
2/3. 3928/4646 (6)
4. 967 (5)
5/6. 5576/5837 (3)

I used TBA and 2834's Scouting database for all stats. Thanks!

A large portion of this was all found and copied by hand. If there are any errors in it, feel free to correct me.

tldr: 525 is pretty undisputedly the best in Iowa.

[wajirock]

tldr: 525 is pretty undisputedly the best in Iowa.

Probably the best in the entire Upper-Midwest.

[Mastonevich]

Probably the best in the entire Upper-Midwest.

The upper midwest (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/US_map-Upper_Midwest.PNG) can be defined as a pretty big area. That is a discussion in itself.

[Richard Wallace]

Probably the best in the entire Upper-Midwest.

The upper midwest (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/US_map-Upper_Midwest.PNG) can be defined as a pretty big area. That is a discussion in itself.

It sure is that!

My view is that eastern-time states don't qualify, letting out Ohio, Michigan, and (mostly) Indiana. North and South Dakota are Great Plains states, like Nebraska and Kansas, along with big portions of Oklahoma and Texas. Where you put Missouri depends on which major city you see it from -- KC or STL.

That leaves Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota in the Upper Midwest.

I'll go with 525 as one of that region's top teams, maybe the best overall looking at a long time period.

[bobbysq]

That leaves Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota in the Upper Midwest.

Ok, then IL has...

https://www.thebluealliance.com/team/2481/2016

Oh.

[Richard Wallace]

Ok, then IL has...

https://www.thebluealliance.com/team/2481/2016

Oh.Yeah, how on earth did our alliance make it out of the quarters at IRI? :confused:

2481 vs. 525 has to go to the two time world champs, looking at the last five years. Considering a longer time frame and overall program impact, I still give the edge to 525.

[TheBoulderite]

2481 vs. 525 has to go to the two time world champs, looking at the last five years.

2481 has gone to Einsteins twice and won once.

[IndySam]

2481 has been one of my favorite teams for years. I would find it hard not to rank them #1.

[TheBoulderite]

Here's my take on Colorado:

OPR (2016):
1. 1619 (52.05)
2. 4388 (39.14)
3. 2996 (36.25)
4. 4499 (35.73)
5. 2240 (34.54)

Results (2016):
1. 1619 (Arizona North Regional Quarterfinalist, Colorado Regional Winner, Carson Semifinalist)
2. 4499 (Arizona North Regional Quarterfinalist, Colorado Regional Finalist, 15th seed on Galileo)
3. 4550 (Colorado Regional Winner, 45th seed on Newton)
4. 1339 (Colorado Regional Finalist, 30th seed on Galileo)
5. 1410 (Arizona North Regional Semifinalist, Colorado Regional Semifinalist)

OPR (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016):
1. 1619 (1.22, 30.01, 106.63, 88.75, 52.05)
2. 2996 (22.70, 61.51, 50.28, 40.42, 36.25)
3. 1410 (11.73, 50.78, 28.20, 24.84, 28.42)
4. 662 (8.48, 11.91, 42.82, 45.28, 31.97)
5. 4499 (N/A, 21.34, 23.11, 48.16, 35.73)

Results (2012-2016):
1. 1619 (3 Quarterfinalists, 2 Semifinalists, 3 Winners, 2 CMP Semifinalists)
2. 2996 (3 Quarterfinalists, 2 Semifinalists, 2 Winners, 1 CMP Semifinalist)
3. 4499 (6 Quarterfinalists, 2 Finalists, 1 CMP Quarterfinalist)
4. 4550 (3 Quarterfinalists, 1 Semifinalists, 1 Winner)
5. 1410 (3 Quarterfinalists, 3 Semifinalists, 2 Finalists)

Culture:
1. 2996 (1 Rookie All Star, 2 Engineering Inspiration, 3 Chairman's)
2. 4499 (2 Rookie All Star, 2 Engineering Inspiration, 2 Chairman's)
3. 159 (1 Engineering Inspiration, 4 Chairman's)
4. 1619 (1 Engineering Inspiration, 1 Chairman's)
5. 4944 (2 Rookie All Star)

This is my take. I'd love to see another Coloradan's view!

[Citrus Dad]

Yeah, 3 regionals, a division, and Einstein isn't enough, stop slacking off! :P

Ugh, the mistakes I make by doing this by hand...

I think I copied an old graph and somehow swapped 1678 with 1717, losing your 2016 data in the process. Anyway, here's a fixed graph. Hopefully I didn't managed to mess something else up.

http://i.imgur.com/eum5QvC.jpg

All I can say is even when we improve, we still can't close the gap on 254!! And it was kind of nice being able to win those events without having to actually play!:D

[TheBoulderite]

I'll do Alaska, too.

OPR 2016:
1. 568

Performance 2016:
1. 568

Overall 2016:
1. 568

OPR Last 5 Years:
1. 568

Performance Last 5 Years:
1. 568

Overall Last 5 Years:
1. 568

Team Culture:
1. 568