How do you rank?

[allen0977]

Team 1251, the TechTigers, have put together a "Relative Power Ranking" system that analyzes scores and records of teams competing at various regionals and ranks teams relative to each others performance. Come check out how your team ranks among other teams participating in your local regionals, across multiple regionals, and those attending nationals.

We pulled team names from each team's website, and tried to be as accurate and current as possible. Please let us know if your team goes by a different name so we can fix it in our database.

We could only compile data from the 19 regionals that contained data on the US FIRST website, if anyone has data from regionals that we are missing, it would be greatly appreciated.

http://1251.techtigers.com/PowerRank/FirstRPI

Thanks,
-Allen

[Raul]

It looks like your power ranking is very close to being based on winning percentage. But since there are teams with higher percentages ranked lower, I am curious what formula that includes scores you used to figure the ranking.

[allen0977]

It looks like your power ranking is very close to being based on winning percentage. But since there are teams with higher percentages ranked lower, I am curious what formula that includes scores you used to figure the ranking.

We determine a strength of schedule by looking at each teams opponents winning percentage and also those opponents opponents winning percentage ..

(3*(winningPercent) + 2*(OpponentsWinPercent)+1*(OpponentsOpponentsWinPe rcent))/6

that helps weight your score, and then we look at margin of victory in individual games to give more/less points which could move a team up/down the ranking. Everything changes with each new match entered, even if it is a team you never faced (as long as one of your opponents faced any team in the new match)

[MattB703]

It seems like this ranking could be more accurate if it also included wins/losses in the elimination rounds.

[NoRemorse]

That is a very neat system. I am very impressed! I wrote somthing very similar to fill out my bracket in March!

[Gene F]

It seems like this ranking could be more accurate if it also included wins/losses in the elimination rounds.

I was thinking the opposite. Our ranking does include the elimination rounds. Not including the eliminations would be a better random sampling.

[SteveO]

Very Cool. That is an interesting formula.

[Billfred]

I dig this.

I spotted a few quirks in the system--the FAQs and clicking the team number both try to trigger file downloads in Firefox 1.0.2. (Well, that, and 1293 is D5 Robotics--Ockham's Raizor is just the robot's name. But that's just splitting hairs.)

Hope to see this more in 2006!

[thoughtful]

That is very accurate and i can see a lot of work went into it. Bravo!

However, i was thinking that no one mentioned counting your alliance partners strenght. This will make it much more accurate, for example if a team had low ranked alliance partners and still managed to win a lot of those matches; they should be rated higher. :rolleyes:

[Warren Boudreau]

You can get more data from Karthik's white paper here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/papers.php?s=&action=single&paperid=490

[Swampdude]

You guys did a heck of a job on that software. Sebastian is the man when it comes to scouting and scouting software. They gave me a little demo at Palmetto and I was a bit overwhelmed.
On Saturday I was surprised you had us ranked so low, but when you based it on W/L's you're not necessarily going to get a good picture. Although it is definitely a good data point to look at. I would suggest you mix in a penalty factor though. In our case 2 of our losses at Palmetto were completely out of our hands because of penalties from our alliances. Maybe if you look at the score "before" penalties - since we actually won all 3 of of our losses but then penalties erased the scores. I know it's hard to actually get that information as to "who" drew the flags - or what the pre-penalty score was. But I think it will paint a better picture.
Anyhow, looking forward to seeing you guys next week!

[Joshua May]

Looks nice, but some of the information seems to be wrong. For example, my team 1110 for some reason has the name "Circuit Runners" but that is team 1002.

[gren737]

nice job :)

[Jack Jones]

That is very accurate and i can see a lot of work went into it. Bravo!

However, i was thinking that no one mentioned counting your alliance partners strenght. This will make it much more accurate, for example if a team had low ranked alliance partners and still managed to win a lot of those matches; they should be rated higher. :rolleyes:

I agree 100%. It's often your partners that make you or break you.

[David Guzman]

We have a great scouting team system in our team, this program that our scouts and Mr. B made is awsome.

At the regionals in the picking aliancer ceremony we could see how they were just picking the same teams that we had in our list and in almost the same order.

Also i think is pretty cool that you pick the regional(s) and it will give you a ranking with only the information from the chosen regionals, it takes a little bit because there is so much data involved but it works great.

Don't hesitate to visit our pits at The Championships or look for the bright orange shirts at the stands, you are all welcome to see the program and all the data that we have from every team.

Dave

[Arefin Bari]

Wow... what an improvement for a 2nd year team.

you guys simply amaze me.

I have seen you guys scout, you guys go out there and dig out every bit of info you can find about the team. Proud to say that you guys are my friends. :)

... see you guys in a week. Rock the archimedes guys.

[Meyerman]

awsome job guys i like how high u put up team 56

[allen0977]

It seems like this ranking could be more accurate if it also included wins/losses in the elimination rounds.

This data is almost entirely generated by Qualifying matches. I included the Quarterfinals/Semi-finals/Finals only to help differentiate teams and give a slightly better spread

[allen0977]

You guys did a heck of a job on that software. Sebastian is the man when it comes to scouting and scouting software. They gave me a little demo at Palmetto and I was a bit overwhelmed.
On Saturday I was surprised you had us ranked so low, but when you based it on W/L's you're not necessarily going to get a good picture. Although it is definitely a good data point to look at. I would suggest you mix in a penalty factor though. In our case 2 of our losses at Palmetto were completely out of our hands because of penalties from our alliances. Maybe if you look at the score "before" penalties - since we actually won all 3 of of our losses but then penalties erased the scores. I know it's hard to actually get that information as to "who" drew the flags - or what the pre-penalty score was. But I think it will paint a better picture.
Anyhow, looking forward to seeing you guys next week!

Unfortunately this data isn't available anywhere. I wanted to post 2 rankings, one with and one without penalties, but could not find any where that scores sans penalties existed.

[Collmandoman]

Do you by chance have any info on palmetto before teams selected on saturday ~ GREAT SYSTEM does look like a lot of work went into it

[David Guzman]

awsome job guys i like how high u put up team 56

:D We didn't put you guys up there. That is just a reflection of how you guys have performed. Good job.

Dave

[XtremeEagle04]

Hey the system looks great!

what are the chances of you getting the finger lakes regional info up before nationals? no big deal i understand how much work is involved and would like to thank you on behalf all of the FIRST community :D

btw team 326 goes by the "Xtreme Eagles" ;)

[tbmantia]

Team 1288 from the St. Louis Regional is not on the list.

[allen0977]

Team 1288 from the St. Louis Regional is not on the list.

We unfortunately don't have the data for the St. Louis Regional. If you know where I can find the Qualifying Match teams and scores, I'd be more than happy to input them

[allen0977]

Hey the system looks great!

what are the chances of you getting the finger lakes regional info up before nationals? no big deal i understand how much work is involved and would like to thank you on behalf all of the FIRST community :D

btw team 326 goes by the "Xtreme Eagles" ;)

We unfortunately don't have the data for the Finger Lakes Regional. If you know where I can find the Qualifying Match teams and scores, I'd be more than happy to input them

[Kris Verdeyen]

We determine a strength of schedule by looking at each teams opponents winning percentage and also those opponents opponents winning percentage ..

(3*(winningPercent) + 2*(OpponentsWinPercent)+1*(OpponentsOpponentsWinPe rcent))/6

that helps weight your score, and then we look at margin of victory in individual games to give more/less points which could move a team up/down the ranking. Everything changes with each new match entered, even if it is a team you never faced (as long as one of your opponents faced any team in the new match)

You could subtract out alliance partners by doing:
(3*(winningPercent) + 2*(OpponentsWinPercent - PartnersWinPercent)+1*(OpponentsOpponentsWinPercen t-PartnersPartnersWinPercent - OpponentsPartnersWinPercent + PartnersOpponentsWinPercent))/6

... at least I think that'd do it.

I'm not sure how you'd be able to put in the relative strengths of the regionals. Average total match score might do it.

Anyway, great job.

[spears312]

Awesome software. It's kinda cool to look at the rankings of all the teams at nationals in some sense. There is just a little typo with heatwave's rank! (j/k). Another piece of great work from you guys, hope I get the chance to talk to you all again at nationals.

[Kims Robot]

Great Data!! :)

If you are looking for some results for FLRC, partial UNOFFICIAL results are here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35742

I have also attached our match history as recreated by Doug.

[Corey Balint]

All weekend I had been talking to 1251 and just discussing the game and their strategy. Come saturday i asked them(since they were in first) how their scouting was coming along. They said greatly and that they had a "system" set up. Me been nosey, wanted to know more. They kept it secret until we ended up aligning with them (we ranked a 100 at Palmetto, 5 points higher then any other, and 3 spots ahead of 1251 themselves-had to brag). I was amazed. I had always wanted to set something like this up, but my lack of intelligence seems to hinder that progress. Props to 1251 on a great system.

[Barry Bonzack]

::sniffs arms:: hey, I don't rank! :p


This is a very cool system. I was wondering when someone would come out with a formula that calculated SOS. I decided to take this site for a test run and used it in picking my top Fantasy First teams... along with a mix of teams that I saw at UCF and Lone Star Regionals and gut feeling. I like the cool color code to the left of the teams names that says what division the teams are in for the Championship, that was useful as well. I'm pretty proud of my team's rank by this system. Very cool guys.

Now I wonder when someone will rank teams judging by their community service and public outreach programs. :-D

[dmurdz]

If this is to be used to rank the teams from the best one that won the most it would be great.

But I believe that ypu need to consider other factors when choosing who the BEST all around team, factors that would take hours and hours to find and calculate.

But still Good Job!

[David Guzman]

If this is to be used to rank the teams from the best one that won the most it would be great.

But I believe that ypu need to consider other factors when choosing who the BEST all around team, factors that would take hours and hours to find and calculate.

But still Good Job!

:D Did You read the first post???

It is not only based on winnings and loses it also takes into acount your opponents and your partners, if you look at the ranking you can see that teams that have less wins then another team can still rank higher then teams with more wins.

Dave

[ChuckDickerson]

First, I would like to say thank you to Team 1251 for a job well done! The effort put into this ranking system is evident and the outcome is a very nice product useful to all teams. I have never been a big fan of the W-L-T/RP system that FIRST uses at the competitions especially with the RP based on the losing score/lowest un-penalized score. I have never really felt that it has been effective at accomplishing the objective. The FIRST system does not really seem to do a good job at ranking a team based on the strengths and weaknesses of the teams that you randomly play with and against. The system used in Team 1251’s relative power ranking does at least make an attempt at factoring in these strengths and weaknesses even if there is minor data entry errors discovered in team information. It is unfortunate that the raw data is unavailable from some of the early regional competitions. Without that we cannot really paint a complete picture. The FIRST W-L-T/RP system, however, is fairly straightforward and easy to compute rapidly at competitions. With this in mind I have a few thoughts, questions, and comments.

1) I am unclear as to if this relative power ranking system is (or can be) computed in near real time or is it something that takes quite a while to compute due to the interdependence of the power rankings of the teams at the competition. If a team was to supply corrected information for their particular team or even accurate data for a whole regional is it a big deal to update/compute the rankings after the data is entered? Once the “compute ranking” button is pressed are the results fairly immediate or is it more of a go get coffee come back and they are ready or more of a start it tonight before bed and they are ready in the morning kind of thing? Is this a system that could be used instead of the real time FIRST W-L-T/RP system for ranking teams at competition? Is it even appropriate?

2) How is the rank determined between teams with equal relative power rankings determined?

3) How difficult would it be to compute the same rankings (overall and per regional) without the elimination rounds being included? I would be interested to see how close this ranking system would be to the FIRST standings using the W-L-T/RP system after qualifications. Could it be a simple button on the web page to include or not include elimination rounds or even just compute the rankings both ways and display them side-by-side for comparison?

4) It would be helpful in the overall ranking page to also be able to see which regionals each team attended and the ranking points for that team at that regional in an additional column. For Example: 3, Archimedes, PINK, 233, 30, 3, 0, 97, FL=90 CO=99. This way you know Team 233 went to 2 regional competitions (FL and CO) and that they got relatively stronger. If this additional data were on the same overall page it would prevent a lot of jumping back and forth between pages.

5) The ability to sort by divisions at nationals might be helpful as well. This way you could get a short list of just the teams in your division.

6) With all the talk on CD about best, strongest, etc. regional competitions it seems like you have the data to compute a relative difficulty level of each of the regional competitions here as well. It would be an interesting statistical exercise.

Finally and most importantly, I want to say to all teams that numbers are just numbers. Don’t put too much faith in ANY ranking system. This ranking system at best points out which teams were relatively strong at the competitions they have already competed in. Use it as just that, an indication of what teams might be strong in Atlanta. Anything can and probably will happen in Atlanta. For those teams going to Atlanta please remember to have fun. Don’t get bogged down in the rankings. Relax, enjoy yourself, do the best you can, and remember that these are the things that make tomorrow’s memories.

Good luck to all teams going to Atlanta! With so many people traveling from so many far away places please travel safely.

Sorry for the long post!

-Chuck

[techtiger1]

Wow First off thanks to everyone for there imput especially for the last post very well put. The power ranking system has proven to be fairly accurate for us at the regionals we have been to. Hopefully it contines to be! A very special thanks to Sebas and Mr.Barriere for making this work and being so diligent about this thank you all very much.

[allen0977]

1) I am unclear as to if this relative power ranking system is (or can be) computed in near real time or is it something that takes quite a while to compute due to the interdependence of the power rankings of the teams at the competition. If a team was to supply corrected information for their particular team or even accurate data for a whole regional is it a big deal to update/compute the rankings after the data is entered? Once the “compute ranking” button is pressed are the results fairly immediate or is it more of a go get coffee come back and they are ready or more of a start it tonight before bed and they are ready in the morning kind of thing? Is this a system that could be used instead of the real time FIRST W-L-T/RP system for ranking teams at competition? Is it even appropriate?

While at UCF and Palmetto, we generated this data Real Time. After each match we'd add the data to the db, and then refresh the page to see the new results. One regional takes a little less than a minute to compute. You can generate results real time for multiple regionals on the site by selecting them on the right. 2 regionals takes a little over a minute. 8 Regionals is on the order of 4-5 minutes, 19 regionals takes 30 minutes. As you add more teams it increases the data hash exponentially and thus takes much longer. 50 teams isn't too bad, 700 is a little out rageous


2) How is the rank determined between teams with equal relative power rankings determined?

This is quite rare with so much unique data per team, but in the even that they are exactly the same, it sorts by team number.


3) How difficult would it be to compute the same rankings (overall and per regional) without the elimination rounds being included? I would be interested to see how close this ranking system would be to the FIRST standings using the W-L-T/RP system after qualifications. Could it be a simple button on the web page to include or not include elimination rounds or even just compute the rankings both ways and display them side-by-side for comparison?

This is not difficult at all. I have the mechanism in place just hadn't generated the pages yet. With the multiple requests for this, I think I'll have to do that soon


4) It would be helpful in the overall ranking page to also be able to see which regionals each team attended and the ranking points for that team at that regional in an additional column. For Example: 3, Archimedes, PINK, 233, 30, 3, 0, 97, FL=90 CO=99. This way you know Team 233 went to 2 regional competitions (FL and CO) and that they got relatively stronger. If this additional data were on the same overall page it would prevent a lot of jumping back and forth between pages.

This would be real hard to do real time, since the data changes dramatically each match, even when your team isn't even competing. But with static data like previous regionals, I should be able to store that data and output it .. would the "Relative Power" value be the number you'd like, or would the team rank be more appropriate?


5) The ability to sort by divisions at nationals might be helpful as well. This way you could get a short list of just the teams in your division.

I was trying to figure out a good algorithm to do this, haven't thought through it just yet.


6) With all the talk on CD about best, strongest, etc. regional competitions it seems like you have the data to compute a relative difficulty level of each of the regional competitions here as well. It would be an interesting statistical exercise.

This data must be cached somewhere in the program, it'd just be a matter of figuring it out. Maybe I should compute the win/loss percentage per regional and average margin of victory then run each regional through the program as if they were individual teams. That might have some interesting metrics ;)


Finally and most importantly, I want to say to all teams that numbers are just numbers. Don’t put too much faith in ANY ranking system. This ranking system at best points out which teams were relatively strong at the competitions they have already competed in. Use it as just that, an indication of what teams might be strong in Atlanta. Anything can and probably will happen in Atlanta. For those teams going to Atlanta please remember to have fun. Don’t get bogged down in the rankings. Relax, enjoy yourself, do the best you can, and remember that these are the things that make tomorrow’s memories.


Myself and the TechTigers whole-heartedly agree with this. Data is data, and statistics can be very misleading. As a Statistics minor in college, I spent much time analyzing data and recognizing falsehoods in the nature of the data. This is provided as a fun way to "measure" teams, but it is the unpredictable nature of the game that makes it fun to do this. FIRST does a wonderful job a leveling the playing fields with the game design and alliances. The only thing statistics are good for is predicting the past (and even that is arguable). We wish the best of luck to all teams at Atlanta, and are anxious to meet with you all there,

-Allen

[ChuckDickerson]

While at UCF and Palmetto, we generated this data Real Time. After each match we'd add the data to the db, and then refresh the page to see the new results. One regional takes a little less than a minute to compute. You can generate results real time for multiple regionals on the site by selecting them on the right. 2 regionals takes a little over a minute. 8 Regionals is on the order of 4-5 minutes, 19 regionals takes 30 minutes. As you add more teams it increases the data hash exponentially and thus takes much longer. 50 teams isn't too bad, 700 is a little out rageous

That is about what I figured. It sounds like it is very feasable to do near real time at an individual event but the overall across the board rankings would have to be done as post event analysis. Which, of course, would work fine since at an individual regional I don't think teams really care how well another team at another regional is power ranked in real time anyway. So basically a system like this could possibly be used instead of the current FIRST W-L-T/RP system. The question now is is it really appropriate?


This is quite rare with so much unique data per team, but in the even that they are exactly the same, it sorts by team number.

Hmm, something seems odd then about the rankings. For example in the overall rankings the first group with the same power rankings are ranks 10-12 (1305, 1024, 1466) with 88 points. Not really in any order that I can determine. Is there maybe a decimal something behind the 88 that we can't see? Not that it matters that much I am just trying to see how this might work at a competition.


This would be real hard to do real time, since the data changes dramatically each match, even when your team isn't even competing. But with static data like previous regionals, I should be able to store that data and output it .. would the "Relative Power" value be the number you'd like, or would the team rank be more appropriate?


I was thinking of this mostly from an overall scouting prospective before Atlanta Nationals so I would think it would only be run on the static data from previous regionals. I'm not sure which would be a better indicator now that you mention it. Probably the relative power I guess but maybe other folks have a better idea. I was just trying to think of a way to get a feel for if more of the top ranked teams went to multiple regionals, how much better they got from one to the next, etc.


This data must be cached somewhere in the program, it'd just be a matter of figuring it out. Maybe I should compute the win/loss percentage per regional and average margin of victory then run each regional through the program as if they were individual teams. That might have some interesting metrics ;)

It would also be interesting to look at the Atlanta Divisions statistically and see if there really is a harder division. Statistically I bet they are all pretty close.

-Chuck

[Keith Chester]

Got bored and decided to play with the algorithm a bit. This is not for compiling data from FIRST's website but for a "while you're there" type approach, ie. scouts plugging in data during divisions to provide a sample of how each team is doing that day.

Share the thoughts, I did it real quick so I didn't expect too much accuracy in it. While my coding ability is extremely rusty, I don't think it's that much harder to implement, and possibly even easy for Excel to run.


2((Your win percentage) + 3(Opponents win percentage) + 3(Ally win percentage))/18 = x

x - (total amount of penalties/2.5) = y (ie: a 30 point penalty and and two 10 point penalties penalizes your power rating by 20!)

if(cancap==1)
o=3;
else
o=1;


(y + 20(avg capped a match) + 500(1/(seconds to cap))/o. = z

z = power rating

Before someone points out that having a high average caps a match and low capping speed go hand in hand, you're right...

...sorta. You see, too many robots have LOWER than their normal average capped a match because they are constantly attacking the back row, thus a HIGHER time to reload for the tetra. They could be averaging the same amount of caps for a much slower team simply because they are the offensive robot of the round, and including their time as a bonus aids this team's ranking. A robot that caps in 5 seconds that averages 5 a match will score HIGHER than a robot that caps in 8 seconds and averages 5 a match (unless the previous team has a worse win record)

My plan that will probably not happen because I'm far too busy: implement it, and prepare it so entering my scout's data Friday night will provide the list of the top teams in Galileo come Saturday.

[allen0977]

2((Your win percentage) + 3(Opponents win percentage) + 3(Ally win percentage))/18 = x

x - (total amount of penalties/2.5) = y (ie: a 30 point penalty and and two 10 point penalties penalizes your power rating by 20!)

if(cancap==1)
o=3;
else
o=1;


(y + 20(avg capped a match) + 500(1/(seconds to cap))/o. = z

z = power rating



I think that would be exciting data to see, but recording the "seconds to cap", counting the avg. capped per match, and figuring out penalties for 6 teams on the field might be an overwhelming feat .. we had a hard time just recording the scores at the end of the match, never mind count how long it took to load a tetra ...
-Allen

[Keith Chester]

I think that would be exciting data to see, but recording the "seconds to cap", counting the avg. capped per match, and figuring out penalties for 6 teams on the field might be an overwhelming feat .. we had a hard time just recording the scores at the end of the match, never mind count how long it took to load a tetra ...
-Allen


Ha ha... we're lucky to have a GREAT scouting team - 7 watching a match at any moment. One is general overview of match, the other 6 are watching one robot each. This makes that kind of data easier to record.

[EricH]

Good sheet, but if 330 is on there, I didn't see it. Also, no one from L.A. Regional is on the list unless they went to another regional. 330 is in Newton at nats.

[Keith Chester]

Good sheet, but if 330 is on there, I didn't see it. Also, no one from L.A. Regional is on the list unless they went to another regional. 330 is in Newton at nats.

He said that there were some regional information missing via the FIRST web site. I'm sure you'll end up on the next list if he does one for nationals.

Don't worry about not getting credit where credit is due - an interesting and cool ranking it is, but most important is seeing what you can do on the field in front of your divison's eyes. Go and show the field what you're made of, and they'll take note.

[dddriveman]

Team 1251, the TechTigers, have put together a "Relative Power Ranking" system that analyzes scores and records of teams competing at various regionals and ranks teams relative to each others performance. Come check out how your team ranks among other teams participating in your local regionals, across multiple regionals, and those attending nationals.

We pulled team names from each team's website, and tried to be as accurate and current as possible. Please let us know if your team goes by a different name so we can fix it in our database.

We could only compile data from the 19 regionals that contained data on the US FIRST website, if anyone has data from regionals that we are missing, it would be greatly appreciated.

http://1251.techtigers.com/PowerRank/FirstRPI

Thanks,
-Allen


Well i am glad to see that we are the top 20%. Hopefully we will move way up, but lets just see what next week holds for us.

[allen0977]

Good sheet, but if 330 is on there, I didn't see it. Also, no one from L.A. Regional is on the list unless they went to another regional. 330 is in Newton at nats.

Good News, someone has contacted me with information for LA and Arizona. They are supposed to be putting it into a spreadsheet for me and I'll update the lists once I get it ...

thanks for all your help!
-Allen

[allen0977]

most important is seeing what you can do on the field in front of your divison's eyes. Go and show the field what you're made of, and they'll take note.

This is for fun, on the field is really where it counts!

[Steph]

looks awesome :) (even though Team 1006 is listed by our FLL team's name, Cougar Roboteers. We're Port Perry Robotics.) Interesting though, I love it!

[RyanMcE]

I like the idea behind the FIRST RPI. Unfortunately, FIRST's scoring system was seriously messed up for the first two weeks, and so none of the data from those two weeks can't really be trusted. It looks like you left the first two weeks of regionals out entirely.

For example, my team (492, Titan Robotics) had a 9-0-1 record at the PNW Regional, which I think might give us the top "power ranking" due to having the only lossless record.

I encourage you to keep this up for next year. Hopefully FIRST will finally figure out how to get it right (but thats another topic).

[Winged Globe]

I like the idea behind the FIRST RPI. Unfortunately, FIRST's scoring system was seriously messed up for the first two weeks, and all your data from those two weeks can't really be trusted, in my opinion.

For example, you have my team, 492 (Titan Robotics Club, not Warren Robotics, btw) with a 3-7-0 record. In reality, we have a 9-0-1 record, which I think might give us the top "power ranking" due to a lossless record.

I encourage you to keep this up for next year. Hopefully FIRST will finally figure out how to get it right (but thats another topic).

You're actually looking at rank 492:
Rank 492 Team Warren Robotics Team #829 W-L-T 3-7-0 Power 38

There does not seem to be any data from PNW.

[RyanMcE]

You're actually looking at rank 492:
Rank 492 Team Warren Robotics Team #829 W-L-T 3-7-0 Power 38

There does not seem to be any data from PNW.

Heh, thanks. I realized I messed up when I was looking through the rankings again, but you beat me to it.

[the_short1]

awsome stuff! that is really cool software and its results are faily acurate.. and it just showed me how galileo is going to be FUN division to play in. . eek.... only problem is its SOOO awsome that 100;s of pppl are flooding your webserver . . . and its killing it.. :(..

[allen0977]

We pulled team names from each team's website, and tried to be as accurate and current as possible. Please let us know if your team goes by a different name so we can fix it in our database.

We could only compile data from the 19 regionals that contained data on the US FIRST website, if anyone has data from regionals that we are missing, it would be greatly appreciated.

http://1251.techtigers.com/PowerRank/FirstRPI



Thanks to all that posted replies and sent data, we have been able to update and fix the PeachTree, Philadelphia, and Lonestar scores as well as add the Finger Lakes, Southern California, and Arizona Regionals. Thanks to all that submitted data, and if you know where we might be able to find the other 8 data sets we'd greatly appreciate it!
-Allen

[allen0977]

awsome stuff! that is really cool software and its results are faily acurate.. and it just showed me how galileo is going to be FUN division to play in. . eek.... only problem is its SOOO awsome that 100;s of pppl are flooding your webserver . . . and its killing it.. :(..

I updated a some of the software to make it run a bit smoother .. hopefully it will be running a bit smoother now

[Chris V 1503]

Hey, I like how you have that ranking system set up, one thing I noticed though is the team ranked at 179 - Team #1503 - Spatonics. The name is actually Team #1503 - Spartonics. Just a heads up so you know.

[Joe Domingo]

Thanks to all that posted replies and sent data, we have been able to update and fix the PeachTree, Philadelphia, and Lonestar scores as well as add the Finger Lakes, Southern California, and Arizona Regionals. Thanks to all that submitted data, and if you know where we might be able to find the other 8 data sets we'd greatly appreciate it!
-Allen

Awesome!
Glad we could help out. See you in Atlanta!!

[PEKMAN]

Excellent work. This will make everyone's scouting a lot easier.
It's also great to see where you stand in relation to everyone else.

I noticed that when your values were changed today, several teams lost their links to thier matches, and their names were completely left off:
Rank Name Number
88 Spike 293
130 Technotics 1626
269 Funkey Monkeys 846
571 Spartans X-bots 487

In addition, team 1312, Crusaders ranked 199, were listed as being named "(syntax error)"

[Daniel Brim]

Our match results are wrong. We are 12-11-0, not 11-14-0. Do not trust the Phoenix regional results online! They are wrong.

This does not include eliminations, where we were 1-4 I believe, which would put us at 13-15-0

-Daniel

[sw293]

Before anybody here uses these rankings to write us off as the 88th best team in the nation, I ask you to examine our performance in our second regional, Philadelphia, and our 86 performace rating there, which would put us in the top 25 overall and 4th best in Newton. ;)

Your formula should place the most weight on the more recent performance of each team, because that is a better reflection of how they will perform at Nationals.

[brent_107]

Before anybody here uses these rankings to write us off as the 88th best team in the nation, I ask you to examine our performance in our second regional, Philadelphia, and our 86 performace rating there, which would put us in the top 25 overall and 4th best in Newton. ;)

Your formula should place the most weight on the more recent performance of each team, because that is a better reflection of how they will perform at Nationals.
Thankyou sw293, I could not agree more with you, our performance was dramatically increased at the west michigan regional (we won by the way) as opposed to our first regional at midwest. For the most part It has always been this way, in previous years.

[Joe Ross]

can you have it display the team's rank for that regional on the team summary page, as well as their rank overall?

[Jill1022]

#79!! Who hoo!!!

I like the site, its great.

[Kit Gerhart]

I'm impressed. You guys must have way too much time on your hands.:)

[Meyerman]

team 56 is 8th in nation and 2nd in Galileo with a power ranking of 94 im very happy with this year performance hope to keep it up at nationals see yall there!

[Goobergunch]

*sigh* We aren't on there, because FIRST doesn't have the Chesapeake information up yet.

The results for Chesapeake matches 2, 13, 21, 36, 45, 52, 61, and 69 can be found at http://www.friarbot.com (right on the main page) - we kept records of the matches that we were in. I don't know where the other match results can be found.

[Ianworld]

Very cool and neat system. My team will defenitly add it to our scouting repetoir. Of course I don't loooove how it ranked my team, but it is accurate based off how we did in the trenton regional. We defenitly improved after that to be one of the best bots in the NYC regional.

Which brings me to my point I know certain teams mentioned above that they improved quite a bit at their second or even third regional. I'm not sure if its possible, but is there a way to display the rankings based off only the last 10 match results? Or short of that just their last regional. I bet to include these features though would be quite a bit of work.

[allen0977]

Very cool and neat system. My team will defenitly add it to our scouting repetoir. Of course I don't loooove how it ranked my team, but it is accurate based off how we did in the trenton regional. We defenitly improved after that to be one of the best bots in the NYC regional.

Which brings me to my point I know certain teams mentioned above that they improved quite a bit at their second or even third regional. I'm not sure if its possible, but is there a way to display the rankings based off only the last 10 match results? Or short of that just their last regional. I bet to include these features though would be quite a bit of work.

You can get individual Regional Rankings by clicking on the regional on the right .. If you want more than one, it takes some time to generate, but you can select them and click submit and it will rank only the regionals selected.

-Allen

[Mike Martus]

Looks as if a lot of thought went into the system. Great job.

A word of caution however:
FIRST has made this game very dependant upon the random pairings of teams. This was done specifically to disperse the talent. I know of many great teams that have a low ranking but have great robots. Look at Team #68 that was ranked almost dead last at a regional but has a very great robot. They were selected high in the draft and preformed very well for their alliance.

What is very important is the scouting on Thursday and Friday to give a final look at all robots in each division. Each selecting team needs to look at each robot and what it can do for their alliance.

[David Guzman]

I'm impressed. You guys must have way too much time on your hands.:)

:rolleyes: Not really!!! :p

We just have a great scouting team and they work very hard. Also one of our mentors Mr. Barrier has put a lot of work into this at home. Im sure every year it will get better and better. :D

Dave

[sw293]

I would not use these rankings for scouting for three reasons:

1. They are based on incomplete data.
2. An objective formula is a poor substitute for an analysis of a team's performace.
3. You want to rank based on compatibility more than performance when scouting robots, because if you have to pick, you don't want three robots who like to start with the tetra in autonomous or three robots who spend a lot of time in the human loading zone. The rankings look at performance, rather than compatibility.

If you want to do some real scouting, go to wherever in the stands 1251 is sitting and watch what they are doing. My bet is that human beings are taking observations, and human beings are analyzing those observations and drawing conclusions from them. I bet the 24-team list they take with them onto the field during alliance selection is more a product of human observation and analysis than some artificial formula.

How do I rank? I rank by looking at a teams performance. I look at stats, like a team's best and average capping numbers, but I also look at what loading zones a robot uses and what it's autonomous mode does. I also listen to what the scouts on my team have to say, what observations they've made and what conclusions they've drawn. Then I go through and rank teams, 1 to 24, by drawing my own conclusions from the information I have. For example, at Philadelphia, I ranked my top six: 56, 103, 358, 316, 834, 365. Do a little scouting of your own and look up where those teams finished in Philadelphia. You'll find three champions, two finalists, and one semifinalist. That's how I rank.

[Mr. Vulgarity]

I'm a little confused. At spot number 130, you have 1626 listed, but the team name is the Techtonics? 1626 is Falcon Robotics from Metuchen NJ.

[slickguy2007]

I would not use these rankings for scouting for three reasons:

1. They are based on incomplete data.
2. An objective formula is a poor substitute for an analysis of a team's performace.
3. You want to rank based on compatibility more than performance when scouting robots, because if you have to pick, you don't want three robots who like to start with the tetra in autonomous or three robots who spend a lot of time in the human loading zone. The rankings look at performance, rather than compatibility.

If you want to do some real scouting, go to wherever in the stands 1251 is sitting and watch what they are doing. My bet is that they human beings are taking observations, and human beings are analyzing those observations and drawing conclusions from them. I bet the 24-team list they take with them onto the field during alliance selection is more a product of human observation and analysis than some artificial formula.

How do I rank? I rank by looking at a teams performance. I look at stats, like a team's best and average capping numbers, but I also look at what loading zones a robot uses and what it's autonomous mode does. I also listen to what the scouts on my team have to say, what observations they've made and what conclusions they've drawn. Then I go through and rank teams, 1 to 24, by drawing my own conclusions from the information I have. For example, at Philadelphia, I ranked my top six: 56, 103, 358, 316, 834, 365. Do a little scouting of your own and look up where those teams finished in Philadelphia. You'll find three champions, two finalists, and one semifinalist. That's how I rank.


Chill... they were just trying to help everyone out. No need to stress..... :cool:


GO 1403!!!

[Cowmankoza]

I would not use these rankings for scouting for three reasons:

1. They are based on incomplete data.
2. An objective formula is a poor substitute for an analysis of a team's performace.
3. You want to rank based on compatibility more than performance when scouting robots, because if you have to pick, you don't want three robots who like to start with the tetra in autonomous or three robots who spend a lot of time in the human loading zone. The rankings look at performance, rather than compatibility.

If you want to do some real scouting, go to wherever in the stands 1251 is sitting and watch what they are doing. My bet is that they human beings are taking observations, and human beings are analyzing those observations and drawing conclusions from them. I bet the 24-team list they take with them onto the field during alliance selection is more a product of human observation and analysis than some artificial formula.

How do I rank? I rank by looking at a teams performance. I look at stats, like a team's best and average capping numbers, but I also look at what loading zones a robot uses and what it's autonomous mode does. I also listen to what the scouts on my team have to say, what observations they've made and what conclusions they've drawn. Then I go through and rank teams, 1 to 24, by drawing my own conclusions from the information I have. For example, at Philadelphia, I ranked my top six: 56, 103, 358, 316, 834, 365. Do a little scouting of your own and look up where those teams finished in Philadelphia. You'll find three champions, two finalists, and one semifinalist. That's how I rank.

Ahh good point, however there is a second program that lets us view the higher rankings team compatability to ours, so in the end we're not just looking for power (maybe thats what you thought) but also what the other program shows for their stratagy and how it relates to ours (plus we've only seen 1 robot with and exact replica of our stratagy) :D

[sw293]

Ahh good point, however there is a second program that lets us view the higher rankings team compatability to ours, so in the end we're not just looking for power (maybe thats what you thought) but also what the other program shows for their stratagy and how it relates to ours (plus we've only seen 1 robot with and exact replica of our stratagy) :D

So in the end you're really doing this,

If you want to do some real scouting, go to wherever in the stands 1251 is sitting and watch what they are doing. My bet is that human beings are taking observations, and human beings are analyzing those observations and drawing conclusions from them. I bet the 24-team list they take with them onto the field during alliance selection is more a product of human observation and analysis than some artificial formula.


I have nothing against using technology in scouting. Team 293 records video of every match at the regionals we attend, and I also brought a computer with me onto the field for alliance selection in Philadelphia. I just don't like the fact that we're all losing sight here of the most important aspect of scouting: analytical thinking.

[Cowmankoza]

So in the end you're really doing this,


I have nothing against using technology in scouting. Team 293 records video of every match at the regionals we attend, and I also brought a computer with me onto the field for alliance selection in Philadelphia. I just don't like the fact that we're all losing sight here of the most important aspect of scouting: analytical thinking.
analytical thinking is done much faster on a computer :D

[David Guzman]

Ok here is the way we use this and it works for us.

At the stands every one fills out information about each individual team, stuff like speed, capping average, defensive, auto mode, and all kinds of stuff. Then another person is always putting in data in a computer and we have a different program that lets us compare 3 teams at the same time, this program gives us an average of what the team did in every single match, and also whatever comments the scout made. On the other hand some one is simply putting in data about the match results and the teams playing for the Power Ranking. Then to make our list we sit down as a group and we take our power rankings and we look at all the info on the top ranked teams mostly top 24 or 28, then once we look at all the info we have we simply cross out teams that won't work for us and leave the ones that do work out. At the end we pretty much use the order in which the power ranking says unless one of our scouts knows that there could be a little change based on what they saw. Ofcourse this list is done after crossing out those non compatible robots.

We understand that there has to be human envolment in scouting, we simply use the power ranking to give us another idea on what we should look at. If you were ecxpecting a program that can pick for you then you are defenetly in the wrong page. Also our data is as good as FIRST has it up at their web-site except the regionals we were at, if you record is wrong PM Allen with the match #s the teams playing and the correct final score.

Thanks for some of the good comments and we are just sharing this with everyone, doesn't mean this is going to pick teams for you.

Dave

[techtiger1]

sw293 is Absolutely right We do have people in the stands scouting. :) We just thought we post this system to help and show other teams all the work we put into and thought it would be a neat thing to show. We do not pick allience based solely on this system although it is a help. You can not make critical decision's based on just this system. Also please when u check out the link please not the disclamier papers.

Thank you and good luck to all in Atlanta :ahh:,

Drew Disbury Team 1251 The Tech Tigers.

[brent_107]

sw293 is Absolutely right We do have people in the stands scouting. :) We just thought we post this system to help and show other teams all the work we put into and thought it would be a neat thing to show. We do not pick allience based solely on this system although it is a help. You can not make critical decision's based on just this system. Also please when u check out the link please not the disclamier papers.

Thank you and good luck to all in Atlanta :ahh:,

Drew Disbury Team 1251 The Tech Tigers.

I like the system because you can get a general idea of good teams. That way you don't need so much scouting manpower, because you can focus detailed scouting on those ranked high. Not to say that non high ranked teams can't be a threat, but it definitly makes it easier.

[sebas2mil]

To touch on SW923's point

Let me give you a little touch on what is going to happen as far as scouting for us(1251) at NATS


We are planning to have 6 people with a laptop each inputting data into our scouting software (which in the Power Ranking site you can look at the reports) and then on fri we are going to take all the scroes from every matc (hopefully all divisions) and we are going to put it in our Power Ranking

as far as scouting

if we end up top 8 (hopefully) we are going to look at the robots in our Power Ranking who are from the middle up and then we look at the scouting reports and analizer the teams strategy

if ou have a team that is up top on the rankings but when you look at the reports you find that maybe they are not the best robot and they got upthere becase of maybe good alliance partners then we mioght move on to the next robot

another example would be if we look at a robot and they have the same strategy as we do we are not going to put them on top of our list

it is all relative, if we look at the top 5 teams on the RPI and then compare them to the reports and they all have the same strategy it doesnt mean that they are the best of the best

also if we find a good team on our reports and then we look at the RPI and they are doing bad it doesnt mean that we are putting them down it might just be that they had some bad luck

we use the RPI to help us rank teams in a different way than FIRST
we use the Reports to help us look at the weak and strong points of a robot and then compare them to the power raking


sebas

[allen0977]

I would not use these rankings for scouting for three reasons:
1. They are based on incomplete data.
2. An objective formula is a poor substitute for an analysis of a team's performace.
3. You want to rank based on compatibility more than performance when scouting robots, because if you have to pick, you don't want three robots who like to start with the tetra in autonomous or three robots who spend a lot of time in the human loading zone. The rankings look at performance, rather than compatibility.


As one of the developers of this system, I have far better reasons to not use this for scouting ...

<RANT>First off, this system needs no justification or rationalization, it is nothing more than mere "Relative Power Index" power rankings (similar to the BCS). I do this for the NFL teams (http://relativepowerindex.com) and thought a fun port over to US FIRST could prove interesting. it was never intended to be used as an "I am better than you" or "pick me, I'm on the top of the list" ... Statistically, if you look at the NFL rankings for the past 30 years, and compare the rankings week with the following week winners throughout the season, the program is between 30 and 40% accurate at selecting the winner ... lets analyze this a bit more, this means, statistically you have a better chance flipping a coin to determine the winner than using the power ranking ... lets even go a bit further, the home team has a 35% chance of winning (solely on home field advantage), which means if you just select the home team you will be right more often than using the rankings ... and these numbers are consistent for over 30 years of data .. I often mused over the fact, if it's only 40% accurate, selecting the opposite of the "higher ranked" team to win each week would be 60% accurate .. which statistically is significant over this data set ... implying the system is really flipped up-side-down, but I digress

So, to put an end to this banter .. this power ranking is for fun, as a way to measure your team with teams you have not faced, and a way to play with numbers ... but as part of the TechTigers, we will NOT BE GOING SOLELY ON THESE RESULTS for anything ... they help indicate who we'd like to scout further, and who we should talk with as potential partners. It helped us select an alliance at Palmetto, and regardless of the rankings, we would have selected the same teams to go to Finals with. We collect other data throughout the competition ... we'd encourage all teams to stop by and see their "Power Rankings". We will be monitoring and charting the progress during the day Friday and Saturday, but would strongly recommend other methods of scouting to determine alliance partners ... this data is statistics, and by their very nature they are flawed in more ways than this thread can discuss ... but that doesn't stop it from being a fun way to look at data
</RANT>

please use the data for what it is, and don't make it out to be what it's not

thanks
-Allen

[Joe Ross]

For example, at Philadelphia, I ranked my top six: 56, 103, 358, 316, 834, 365. Do a little scouting of your own and look up where those teams finished in Philadelphia. You'll find three champions, two finalists, and one semifinalist. That's how I rank.
5 of your top 6 were in the Relative Power Rankings top 9. That's a very good correlation for two completely disimilar ranking systems. Also, of the Relative Power Ranking's top 6, there were 2 champions, 2 finalists, and 2 semifinalists. I'd say that's pretty good too.

[Joe Domingo]

5 of your top 6 were in the Relative Power Rankings top 9. That's a very good correlation for two completely disimilar ranking systems. Also, of the Relative Power Ranking's top 6, there were 2 champions, 2 finalists, and 2 semifinalists. I'd say that's pretty good too.

Well spotted Joe!!
Hey do you have all the match results for Sacramento? I think 1251 still wants them.
We furnished Allen B with AZ and Socal.
See you in Atlanta

[Koko Ed]

The FLR information is innacurate.
Each team did 12 qualification matches not 10. Thus our record was not 8-2 but 9-2-1.
Also does the power ranking take into consideration awards won?

[sebas2mil]

The FLR information is innacurate.
Each team did 12 qualification matches not 10. Thus our record was not 8-2 but 9-2-1.
Also does the power ranking take into consideration awards won?



it all depends on the regional you went to some regionals played less matches

we can fix your record all we need if you have it the correct data on the regional you went to or at least the matches you [layed and we will compare them to fix the problem

sebas

[allen0977]

The FLR information is innacurate.
Each team did 12 qualification matches not 10. Thus our record was not 8-2 but 9-2-1.
Also does the power ranking take into consideration awards won?

Unofficial results of the FLR were posted at http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35742

I have no idea about the accuracy of this data, and I know it is incomplete ... but it seemed like a good starting point to bring many of those teams into the ranking system

-Allen

[Kit Gerhart]

While we won't use the rankings for scouting, picking, selling ourselves to to other teams or anything else, I'm glad you put all that work into coming up with the list. It is interesting to look through, and something to discuss in this thread. As you say, the list is "for fun," and I'm glad you compiled it.

As one of the developers of this system, I have far better reasons to not use this for scouting ...

<RANT>First off, this system needs no justification or rationalization, it is nothing more than mere "Relative Power Index" power rankings (similar to the BCS). I do this for the NFL teams (http://relativepowerindex.com) and thought a fun port over to US FIRST could prove interesting. it was never intended to be used as an "I am better than you" or "pick me, I'm on the top of the list" ... Statistically, if you look at the NFL rankings for the past 30 years, and compare the rankings week with the following week winners throughout the season, the program is between 30 and 40% accurate at selecting the winner ... lets analyze this a bit more, this means, statistically you have a better chance flipping a coin to determine the winner than using the power ranking ... lets even go a bit further, the home team has a 35% chance of winning (solely on home field advantage), which means if you just select the home team you will be right more often than using the rankings ... and these numbers are consistent for over 30 years of data .. I often mused over the fact, if it's only 40% accurate, selecting the opposite of the "higher ranked" team to win each week would be 60% accurate .. which statistically is significant over this data set ... implying the system is really flipped up-side-down, but I digress

So, to put an end to this banter .. this power ranking is for fun, as a way to measure your team with teams you have not faced, and a way to play with numbers ... but as part of the TechTigers, we will NOT BE GOING SOLELY ON THESE RESULTS for anything ... they help indicate who we'd like to scout further, and who we should talk with as potential partners. It helped us select an alliance at Palmetto, and regardless of the rankings, we would have selected the same teams to go to Finals with. We collect other data throughout the competition ... we'd encourage all teams to stop by and see their "Power Rankings". We will be monitoring and charting the progress during the day Friday and Saturday, but would strongly recommend other methods of scouting to determine alliance partners ... this data is statistics, and by their very nature they are flawed in more ways than this thread can discuss ... but that doesn't stop it from being a fun way to look at data
</RANT>

please use the data for what it is, and don't make it out to be what it's not

thanks
-Allen

[tiffany34990]

really great work! interesting how you all put it together... it pretty much is accurate to what you see... still it all depends on who you play and who you're with in that respect of luck...

good luck all! thanks again for the list

[Meyerman]

I agree with everything you guys are saying about this the ranking dosnt mean a whole lot cept for who gets to pick when i know team 56 dosnt go down the rankings and hope that team behind us is good we have awsome scouts that rank people on a few different things just like most others do im sure. i know at nj when we were #1 seed we didnt even pick in the top 8. see you all at nationals!!!

[sw293]

5 of your top 6 were in the Relative Power Rankings top 9. That's a very good correlation for two completely disimilar ranking systems. Also, of the Relative Power Ranking's top 6, there were 2 champions, 2 finalists, and 2 semifinalists. I'd say that's pretty good too.

'cept I made my list before getting the results of the elimination rounds. I'm sure 316 wasn't close to the top 10 before alliance selection.

[JackN]

This system is genius. I think you would definetly need to add abillity to search divisions. Also something needs to be added about aliance partners. This is amazingly cool though and I am glad you brought it up.

[techtiger1]

This system is genius. I think you would definetly need to add abillity to search divisions. Also something needs to be added about aliance partners. This is amazingly cool though and I am glad you brought it up.


1derboy thank you very much! Team 1251 is just trying to show our ideas to other teams and get our name out there. :) Having a person from 494 the great martians respond is awesome. Good luck and will see you in Archmedies at nationals.Thanks once again.

[ebmonon36]

I dunno if anyone else noticed this, but 461 is ranked 461st :). I found this rather amusing.
Eric

[evolution]

Would there be anyway to look at the power rankings from the techtigers for the 2005 season? The link seems to be down now. Thanks!

[Dusty]

I can't seem to get the link to work, however I am interested in seeing how my team ranks. If anyone else can get the link to work, can you tell me how team 1901 is ranked.

[Corey Balint]

This is a thread from last year ranking last years robots.

[Dusty]

Sorry, I didn't realize that.