Originally Posted by Navid Shafa (Post 1356357)

If you haven't looked, how do you know it's bad?



First and most importantly, I would never make a picklist solely off of quantitative metrics, nor would I want to pick teams based on Pit-scouting and my assessment after watching that robot play. A good combination of both is what makes holistic scouting so valuable.

In almost every FIRST game, a high seeded captain is looking for a robot that is a strong offensive robot. This is exactly what OPR could assist you in finding. You could almost always look at a list of the top teams in OPR and pick one of those.

The second pick is not something you'd want to determine by OPR. Often, you are lucky to find a robot that can play offense, especially at small events or districts. Things like Pit-scouting become extremely important. I'd often look for teams with Multi-Cim gearboxes and strong 6WD or 8WD bases and drivers that know how to use them in matches effectively.


I've never done this, nor I would attempt to do so. A team's rank in seeding quite often does not directly correlate with robot performance, there are many factors that impact the tournament rankings. I certainly would not expect OPR to exactly match the seeding. Look back to 2010 and 2012's seeding systems, the seeding was greatly impacted not only by your partners but the opposing alliance. Perhaps if we had an extremely large sample size these kinds of ranking comparisons would become relevant...



This is exactly why I brought up CCWM before. This is still in my opinion accurately determining personal performance considering a mixture of different alliances and compositions. If we notice a distinct amount of parity between OPR and CCWM we know that a team has done more or less of the scoring for their alliance. It can also help narrow out teams that ranked extremely high or low, due to really strong or really poor match schedules. i.e. A team with a large CCWM value is doing the bulk of the scoring in general for their alliance.

Since you haven't taken a look at it yet, here is some information from your event, Central Illinois:







They look pretty accurate to me, especially at the upper end. I would say both these do a much better job of ranking robot performance than the seeding wouldn't you?

Since you haven't got a chance to look at OPR for the events or your team, I posted the link earlier, but I made a page for you with data just from Central Illinois here: Central Illinois OPR/CCWM with Filtering. Enjoy!

Originally Posted by Michael Hill (Post 1356474)

I'd like to see an OPR justification for why 254 chose 973 and 2135 at CVR. Until then, I'd much rather rely on actual scouting data for real performance evaluation. This game has more facets to it than usual, and there are more ways of scoring points. Previously, points were mostly scored by putting something into a goal. This year, many more things have to be done to get points (and a win). This year is all about choosing compatible robots, not just ones who can put points on the board by themselves. 973 was second to last in OPR at Central Valley, but does that mean that they didn't perform well? Sure, the top teams that can put sick points up are going to bubble to the top, but after about 20-30 teams (overall), it's a big jumble. Isn't it the teams after 20-30 the ones you really care about?

Originally Posted by Ed Law (Post 1356451)

My spreadsheet automatically ignores the redundancies. If a match is replayed, it will use the later match and ignore the original match. Also I only use the twitter data for a district/regional event if there are no match data missing from that event.

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1356523)

OPR is a BS metric this year. This game isn't about scoring. Pretty much every other game in FIRST has required more than one good offensive robot, so you are forced to pick the second best scoring bot at the event, as the #1 seed. Not this one.

You need three things in this game. A really good front court robot that is going to make 90%+ of the shots they take, has a good intake, and isn't afraid to play some defense, a midfielder that is able to transition from assisting to defense on the fly, and an inbounder that can quickly pass the ball to the midfielder as well as play a bit of D or throw some picks for the midfielder to get away from defense to execute the pass.

Two high scoring robots is the flashy alliance that looks great on paper but unless they can transition into those defensive roles on the fly they're not going to stand up to the above alliance. I don't think you will see examples of more brutal defense than what we saw in the CVR finals. If you can't counter that with equally effective defense of your own, or counter defense to free up your front court robot, you're in a world of hurt.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1356552)

Over a sufficiently large sample, a team's value to an average alliance should become clear with OPR/CCWM, though.

Originally Posted by Michael Hill (Post 1356474)

I'd like to see an OPR justification for why 254 chose 973 and 2135 at CVR.

Originally Posted by Jared Russell (Post 1356591)

Maybe for an average qualifications alliance, but not for an average eliminations alliance. Many useful robot attributes cannot be demonstrated in every qualification match due to random alliance pairings. Examples:

1. A great defensive robot doesn't have a big impact in matches where the other alliance would not have been scoring a lot of points anyway.

2. Catching robots require someone to provide a controlled truss shot.

3. Inbounders and assisters require someone to inbound to/assist to.

In each, case, OPR/CCWM will tend to systemically underrate these attributes since they are only utilized in a subset of qualification matches and (in most cases) will have their dependencies met in elims. High goal scorers and truss shooters can manufacture pretty good scores by themselves and are therefore comparatively overrated by OPR/CCWM.

Originally Posted by JTEarley (Post 1356816)

Anyone know of an app I can get to view this on android? I've tried Office suite but it never loads all the way. Any suggestions?

Originally Posted by Navid Shafa (Post 1356819)

Spyder has both OPR and OPR predictions per event. It's nothing fancy, but you might like that.

Originally Posted by Karthik (Post 1356788)

Teams that consistently play on high scoring alliances will continue to get a higher OPR. Thus, teams who are very good at facilitating alliance partners, (Strong inbounding, passing, catching, etc) will eventually rise to the top.

Originally Posted by David8696 (Post 1356873)

In defense of OPR this year, I'd like to look at the data—that is, how accurately OPR has predicted teams' performances in the competitions we've seen thus far. Here are the top 10 teams as ranked by OPR, accompanied by their finishes in the competition they competed in.

1. 1114—Finalist at Greater Toronto East regional (lost finals partly due to technical foul by alliance partner)
2. 2485—Finalist at San Diego regional(also lost finals partly due to tech foul)
3. 3683—Finalist at Greater Toronto East (alliance partner with 1114)
4. 33—Winner of Southfield district event
5. 987—Finalist at San Diego (alliance partner with 2485)
6. 624—Winner of Alamo regional
7. 16—Winner of Arkansas regional
8. 254—Winner of Central Valley regional
9. 3147—Finalist at Crossroads regional
10. 3393—Finalist at Auburn Mountain district

In fact, the top OPR team that didn't make at least finals in their respective regional/district event is 3494 at 12th, followed by 3476 in 13th (whose pickup broke during semifinals at San Diego). Overall, only five of the top 30 teams failed to make the finals, and only two failed to make the semifinals of at least one event. As a robotics and statistics nerd, I think these numbers speak for themselves: OPR may not be a perfect metric, but it seems pretty dang accurate at predicting whether a team will finish well.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sheridan (Post 1356874)

1114 and 3683 lost in the semifinals