Re: Most Dominant Robots By Year
 

I feel like a robot that relies on their partners to win shouldn't be called dominant. Yes, 469 excelled at winning. In elimination rounds, when the #1 side snatched them up to complement their scoring. At Cass Tech (their first district event), their average qualification alliance score was 3.69. By comparison, 217, the #1 seed at Cass Tech, had an average alliance score of 6.42. A significant difference between the #1, undefeated team, and their 6-4-2 first pick.

At MSC, where 469 had their highest average qualification alliance score, it sat at a resounding 13.75. Again, in comparison, 1918, the #1 seed, averaged 12.33 in qualification matches. Yes, 469 beats out their captain in this one, but 469's standard deviation was 7.18, while 1918's was 5.5. What that means is, 1918 was more consistent in their scores than 469 was.

Now, I know you can't judge a robot by their alliance scores. But looking at the alliances and results, 469's higher end scores came mostly when paired with another strong robot, such as 67, 33, 217 and 1918. Their average alliance scores in elimination rounds (with the #1 seed at their events) blow their other scores out of the water.

I know it's a very subjective stance, but I find it hard to say 469 was the most dominant team in 2010 when they relied to heavily on their alliance partners.

I guess a difference in definitions is causing a lot of conflict, especially in 469's case. I see a dominant robot as one that not only wins, but continues to win despite the quality of their alliance partners. In other words, a robot that garners a majority of their wins on their own, unaided.

Re: Most Dominant Robots By Year
 

You're extremely underrating 469's performance outside of the tunnel. Even if they were the only robot on the field with scoring ability, they could pop out of the tunnel and score from midfield effectively, charging their own cycle. It was not a single purpose robot.

Mathematical analysis of consistency isn't the best way to look at things, because 469 had a bigger target on their back than any team in recent memory. Teams devoted multiple robots and entire matches to preventing them from playing parts of their game.

Re: Most Dominant Robots By Year
 

I contemplated posting this as well. It was between 1241 and 33 for the best 2004 bot, in my opinion. But I am also of the opinion that there wasn't really any truly "dominant" bot in 2004.

The same thing can be applied, to an even larger degree, to 2005 onwards. "Dominance" in the 3v3 era means something completely different than it did in prior eras of FRC. No team can dominate a game the same way that 71 did in 1997 or 60 and 71 did in 2002. It's become "dominance" through plurality. More robots on the field, often sharing the same scarce resources, has led to the demise of true dominance. In many respects, it's because of the increase in parity. Mid-level teams are now competing at a much higher level than they used to, and the number of powerhouses has grown substantially.

The only teams from the 3v3 era that enter the discussion as "dominant," in my opinion, are 1114 in 2008 and 469 in 2010. 469 was dominant in the same fashion that 71 was dominant in 2001. They still needed good partners to compete at 100%, but they did a rare function better than anyone else (and were still plenty good at a number of other things). They were, by far, the best "X factor" in that game. 1114 in 2013 may prove to be similar by the end of Championship.
1114 in 2008 was a much more old school dominant. They were simply better than everyone else. It was 47 in 2000-style dominance. Not a chokehold by any means, but very very difficult to outplay. The game mechanics worked against them, though. Their hybrid scoring was easily the best in FRC, but there were only two trackballs to remove from the rack. After knocking those two off, there was diminishing returns for the rest of autonomous scoring for the alliance (as laps weren't worth as much and their alliance partners couldn't knock off any more trackballs). The game mechanics inhibited them from taking an even bigger lead out of hybrid, something that enabled the other alliance to have a chance against them.

Re: Most Dominant Robots By Year
 

I remember 2004!

1241 WAS awesome. Their human player, as I understand it, had been plucked from the highschool basketball team (something Rick Hansen SS was much more well known for at the time than robots). He's STILL part of 1241 today as a mentor, and has a job in a STEM field (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

The only thing 1241 needed in 2004, was an alliance partner with a good auto. At the wonderland invitational (a long-since defunct Canadian offseason) 1241 selected 1075 for our autonomous, and 1114 was our alliance's third pick. The three of us went on to win that event. I still have one of the 5 pt dodgeballs that were the game pieces.

Also: Wow @ 67 in that video from the 2004 GLR. Brilliant play. Love it.

Re: Most Dominant Robots By Year
 

talking about 469 in 2010, my rookie year, made me go back to this right here. A proud moment i must say.

Re: Most Dominant Robots By Year
 

I do realize that 469 wasn't a one-trick pony. I do remember watching them and being astounded at their raw scoring ability, especially when they got their autonomous working and thus the ability to start their own cycle.

That said, 469's most high scoring performances came from using the cycle method with another powerful team. I think a difference in the definition of dominant is making this really difficult. Under my definition, 469 would have continued to have high scoring performances throughout quals and elims at all their competition, despite the quality of their partners or the efforts of their opponents. You seem to have a different definition, as does probably everyone in this thread.

Re: Most Dominant Robots By Year
 

Hi LeelandS,

I'm going against my better judgement to post in this thread about 2010 (since it still holds a special joyful and painful place in my heart)...especially since it's a thread with this topic... However, I just wanted to give you some insight that maybe you wouldn't know about our season... This is in no way to change your opinion or anything else, but maybe just to explain...

In basically all of our qualification matches, we had partners that told us they could score and would score and then our job was simple, park in the tunnel and wait for the balls... Of course, maybe this didn't always happen as designed so there we were...parked in the tunnel for many seconds (or minutes) relying on our partners... So, yes, your conclusion is "correct"...however...there were sometimes reasons behind this lower scores that maybe were not under our influence...

Not that any of this means we should be listed for 2010...