Re: OPR after Week Three Events
 

What is notable about Waterloo is that the top 5 teams all have OPR > 50, and the top 10 are all OPR > 37. Most events from this week I am checking have OPR < 37 by the time you are out of the top 5 showing a clear split of the top teams from everyone else. Of course Waterloo still has that, with the top 2 teams having an OPR > 90 :eek:

Wisconsin has a very strange OPR set. It has 29 teams of OPR > 20 and the top 10 all have OPR > 36, but no one has an OPR > 50. And I already noted in a different thread that OPR compared to average individual robot scores was wrong by at least 5 places for most of the teams I checked.

Re: OPR after Week Three Events
 

Ed,

What is the significance of the shading of the cells in columns O & R (OPR & CCWM) in the individual event pages?

Re: OPR after Week Three Events
 

They are the top 24 OPR/CCWM at the event. This provides an interesting way to compare OPR to alliance selections.

Re: OPR after Week Three Events
 

Sorry Joe, that is not what it is. A lot of times it is true because teams can tell which teams are good without looking at any numbers. It correlates quite well to which teams were drafted.

I put in those conditional formatting back in 2008 and never took it out. Basically, when OPR is bigger than average score, or CCWM is bigger than average winning margin, it will turn green. Green is good. It means those teams contribute more than their partners to get the average score. Somebody with a lucky schedule can have very high average score but OPR/CCWM which are the calculated contribution will tell you the true story in most cases. If you only look at OPR/CCWM and ignore average score and average winning margin, the green color does not add any information.

I am surprised nobody has ever asked this question. I can take it out in the future.

Re: OPR after Week Three Events
 

Tell that to: 1310, 1334, 4039, 1241, 772, 2702, 2852, 3683, 3161, and others...

This was the highest quality FRC Regional i've ever seen, all of those teams listed would do well on a field at championship. The field of 32 teams at Waterloo was historically deep, we got a robot that could do 3+ cycles a match with the 23rd pick, 1114/2056 got a long range shooter with the 24th pick, I call that depth.

At most regionals during qualifications the event can get a little monotonus with a couple poor matches in a row. At Waterloo there was rarely any slow matches during qualifications, everyone in the stands were engaged, I even saw arena staff and regular Waterloo students getting into the games during qualifications.

Re: OPR after Week Three Events
 

One thing that can explain this is the top teams at Wisconsin all had a couple really down matches (1732 got stuck under the pyramid once, had their intake bent and jammed, 2826 jammed once and I think tipped another match, 111 jammed several times, 4212 had matches where they just couldn't get locked in). I think that also explains why no team had a record better than 8-2. When those teams were working, they were far better than their OPR indicated.

Re: OPR after Week Three Events
 

I don't think Waterloo's matches "rarely being slow" has anything to do with depth of field. When there are only 32 teams, and about 20% of the robots at the event are on the field at the same time, chances are there will be at least one good robot.

Ignoring the scores of 1114, 2056, and 4069 during elimination, the average elimination score at Waterloo was 101 (121 if you included them).
Compare that to Boilermaker which had an average elimination of 97 (or 88 if you removed 359, 868, and 1747), I'd say that's similar, but I wouldn't say that BMR had that much depth.

My guess is that you'd find similar results for other regional competitions.

Re: OPR after Week Three Events
 

Please don't. If nobody has ever asked, then they weren't using it. Our team, on the other hand, is probably going to use the heck out of it in our upcoming District Event.

Thank you, Ed, for what is looking like a truly wonderful tool.