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

The reason I say this stuff is because last year, our robot was in the 70th percentile according to EWCP, just not at our regionals. Our robot averaged 12 points in autonomous, and 6 points in teleop. We also balanced on the bridge almost every game. Even so, we only won about 60 percent of our games for both the regional that was held in Cinncinati and the one in Chicago. We came in 18th place at one of them and 21st at another. We were chosen at one of them to be on an elimination team. That is the thing about these regionals up here, almost all of the robots fit the criteria to be in the 70th percentile according to this. For the ones that don't, their teammates are good enough to carry them. It got to the point where we actually placed lower than a box on wheels at one of the regionals. Honest story.

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

You're pointing out one of the biggest flaws in our statistics. They are drawn from all over. What impact does a specific region have on our numbers? Let's take a look at just Midwest (IL) -

I filtered the qualification data down to just IL and then I looked at the quartiles of the scores teleop scores:

25th - .25
50th - 3
75th - 9
100th - 30

How'd it compare with the rest of the world though? Fun story, your bottom tier is a little higher but the rest are right on par. Basically, the numbers don't really back up what you're saying about the teams being better up there.

And before you guys complain that Midwest skewed the numbers and that's why they line up? Midwest had 89 matches. Our qualification data set is 4883 matches. (we remove the qualification only events like MAR/MSC/CMP)

This analysis was all done using the quantile command in R. I can provide code if requested.

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

Do you use R regularly in your work? I've never used it, but it's been on my bucket list for about 5 years now.

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

I don't know what Ian uses for his but pretty much any time I need to do any sort of analysis on a data set I use R. I've found it's fairly easy to use if you think of everything as a set. I like using RStudio rather than just the command line though. If you're interested in it I'd suggest starting that way. It is a full language but I generally prefer to work in a language I know a little better (Python/Ruby) if I'm doing any sort of logic.

For some of the experiments I'm doing with match prediction my current workflow is to use R to filter the set down to what I want, export as a CSV file, then process it in Python. After that I'll process the output in R to see if my model is decent.

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

A lot of the points were scored in autonomous. Can you tell me how those points fared out? Not only that, a lot of alliances did score about 9 points in teleop. A lot of them even scored a little more than that like with us.

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

IL
0.00 6.00 11.75 24.00
All
0 0 6 12 46

EDIT:
And to address your edit...
No, 25% of Alliances scored 9 or more points in teleop.

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

You averaged 12 points in autonomous? What average are you using? If that's your mean autonomous score, that means you either picked up additional balls from one of the bridges in autonomous or never missed a single shot at the top basket. If its your median or mode autonomous score, perhaps it's more plausible.

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

Oh ok thanks, numbers normally don't lie.

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

I am just curious, but can you get the same numbers for MI (including MSC)?
Thanks

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

Nope, just the people with them.

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

NecroThreading this just to keep everything contained.

After a vacation TwentyFour has a new post:

http://twentyfour.ewcp.org/post/5892...hat-time-is-it

We discuss the impact smart defense can have on both the offensive robot and the defensive robot's point contributions. Admittedly, it's a narrow example but the concepts can be expanded fairly easily.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxMEH_eggP4
:cool:

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

Quote:
*And, for the record, Cycles is one of those metrics like shots on goal in hockey. A cycle where you spray your shots wide the minute you cross the mid field line is akin to that lazy bounce off the boards that the goalie leisurely deflects to a player. It’s just padding numbers. *

Plowie does have a way with words :)

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

First of all, I really enjoy reading these posts. They're informative, and fun, and I hope the blog keeps going next (this?) season.

I do have to disagree with a few points in your analysis though, specifically regarding the "Team Plowie" match. I completely agree that often slowing down the top cycler on the other team just a little bit will cause them to drop a cycle and score significantly less. However, trying to do this yourself will often slow down your scoring much more than it slows down theirs. You touched on this, but it isn't effective defense because you're likely spending more time defending them then they are defended for. You usually have to wait around, then intercept them, and maybe even chase them for a little bit. That might make them drop a cycle, but it certainly will make you have less time to score.

I'd argue that instead, you should task one of your alliance partners with, if nothing else, just camping out behind the pyramid. That should make the other alliance's high cycling robot drop a cycle, and it won't impact your scoring at all (I'm assuming that this team would contribute <9 points anyway in teleop). If you're your team's primary scorer, you should focus on scoring. Other people can play defense and improve the difference in score much more.

Both to illustrate my point and as a point of general interest, let me talk to you about a match, specifically this match. We were with 1868 and 766 against an alliance where 971 was the primary scorer. We knew that 971 was the better robot both on paper and in the real world, so our alliance would have to defend against them. With 766 (an above average cycler at SVR) playing defense against 971, we severely restricted their ability to move around the field and score, while we scored with help from 1868. After autonomous, the score was 58-20 Red. By restricting their main scorer and still focusing on scoring, the score was 69-78 Blue by the end of teleop. (We got 3 robots up and they got none, for a final score of 108-69).

Playing defense in a tough match is always a very smart move. But, you still have to focus on outscoring the other alliance, not just shutting them down.

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

While your point is valid, I don't think the score was so low because you had someone defending 971. The other two bots on their alliance were dead, so a victory in a 3v1 match is going to be a likely event. Was 971 capable of scoring more points? Yeah. But the defense didn't win the match.