Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
 

Is there any interest of starting a poll thread to see what teams think their robot will be scoring, and then compare it with actual match data? It might provide some both illuminating and new data about how much teams actually overestimate game play and their abilities.

Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
 

Thanks for taking the time to crunch this data and share your insights. We're trying to do a better job with strategic planning this year we'll definitely take your findings to heart. One goal that we've already set is to have a functioning robot early this year so that the programmers can tune autonomous scoring (even if it's not for 18 points). Glad to see that your findings backed up the importance of doing that.

Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
 

The problem with that is that on CD you would be sampling teams that post on CD, and measuring gameplay we are measuring all teams that show at the event. I think a great idea would be to ask people that question in pit scouting and then actually record how many points they score in match scouting. I'd love to know what you find!

Anecdotally, in 2008 at BAE we asked teams how many hurdles they thought they would average, and they told us 3. The actual regional average was a little below 1 if I remember right. And the higher caliber the team, the closer their estimate was to their actual performance. I think the RhodeWarriors said 3 and actually got close to that, while your typical team would say 3 and average 1 or less!

(If anyone doesn't know what hurdling is, go on youtube and watch the 2008 game animation)

Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
 

I know, there would be bias in the sample. The study could have some compensation (ie multiplying the average guessed score by a factor of .6), or you could just look at the team numbers of those who voted, and compare that to their actual OPR.

If guessed score is plotted against OPR, one data point per team, it would be interesting to see if you could observe a trend. For example, almost all data points would be below f(x)=x, and I suspect most would be below f(x)=x/2. If yout hypothesis is true, there would be a tighter correlation for higher x values.

Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
 

I often tell my scouts, that teams aren't lying, they either remember their best match, and think that is what they can (or do) every time. Sometimes you will also be told what the team believes it is capable of once it is fixed.

This is true though of when you ask people to assess the performance of some of the top performers at an event. They typically remember the best and worst matches of top performers, but then assume their average is really close to that.

Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
 

Hey guess what? Turns out scoring is hard.

http://twentyfour.ewcp.org/post/4052...points-is-hard

Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
 

Great post. Although not too much on new statistics and more summarizing old ones, the point is very much valid. Week 1 is fuelled by excitement and adrenaline. Then the designs start colliding geometrically, don't work out mathematically, and some prototypes start to become duds. This is where it gets hard: week 2 and week 3, when you have to crank out a design.

Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
 

Quoted for truth.

If any of you enjoy reading the blog, it would be awesome if you could pass it along to any teams in your vicinity that you think might learn something from it. Andrew put in Google Analytics, so we can see where people are reading it and it is mostly from veteran areas. We get tons of traffic from places with established teams (Manchester NH is actually #1 :eek:), but not as much from places where we know there are lots of younger teams that may have not had as much competitive success in the past. For us, those younger areas are where we hope we can have the most impact.

Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
 

Now is the time that separates the real deals from the other guys (actually there are a lot of times, but this is the first big separation you see in the season.) Those that choose to ignore the process of iteration of primary and secondary mechanisms, those that refuse to put their drive train on competition-quality carpet, those that fail to understand the statistical realities that have revealed themselves over many FRC seasons, those that do not use the limitless power of hindsight to guide their future thinking over the next two weeks will fail. Weeks 2 and 3 is when your strategy should literally materialize in the build room. Be it late stage prototyping, drive base construction... anything. Don't wait for the robot to be built because the game is figured out in your head. Blind optimism invites corner cutting. Cut enough corners in any real-life application and the project collapses.

The teams that can do at least most of these things have bought themselves some extra time to daydream about victory. To those that ignore these things, time to get on the horse or wait until next year.

Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
 

Ever curious about what alliances improve over the course of an event? We were... http://twentyfour.ewcp.org/post/4076...tter-at-events

Bonus rowboats at the end

Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
 

Since there are no comments on your blog, I'll do it here :)

I'm curious if you have hanging data from another year where hanging was more viable. I feel that because hanging was worth about as much as a ball, that many teams didn't go for it, instead focusing on just being able to score one more ball.

I'm not trying to discredit, I've just been struggling myself with trying to put a worth onto hanging in relation to worth in shooting.

Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
 

The most recent hanging game prior to 2010 is 2004. I probably could find match scores, but there really would be no way to back out hangs from that. (Hangs were worth more, 10 regular balls or 5 with a doubler)

I don't have the 2012 numbers handy, but in 2011 a successful Minibot was launched in 67% of matches. I would expect the percentage of successful (10 pt) climbs to be bounded by these two years. I would imagine the percentage of 20 and 30 pt hangs are somewhere around a triple balance. (in terms of robots that can pull it off. Since it is worth points in quals, you will see it more)

[EDIT]I also apparently messed up the first link in the article and accidentally linked to a local news story. Sorry about that, it has since been fixed to correctly link to an article about "A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats"[/EDIT]

Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
 

It was worth as much as two balls. I actually asked a lot of teams why they chose not to hang in 2010, and by far the most common answer was "we can score two balls in 30 seconds, why bother?"

While tons of teams said that, and thought that, the mean alliance score that year was just over three points, for the entire alliance, for the entire match. Hanging was extremely underrated that year precisely because teams overreached and assumed scoring basketballs was easy. If the average team could score two balls every 30 seconds, more matches would end in double digit scores than single digit scores, which was obviously not the case at all.

Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
 

I wanna be the very best

The important difference between average and exceptional.

Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
 

I live my life 15 seconds at a time.

http://twentyfour.ewcp.org/post/4111...-doin-it-wrong