Originally Posted by David8696 (Post 1356873)

...(lost in semifinals partly due to technical foul by alliance partner)...

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 Alan Anderson (Post 1357308)

If you're going to put that sort of disclaimer on data that doesn't support the thesis, you probably ought to mention those teams whose wins were partly due to fouls committed by opponents. My preference would be to just leave off the commentary and let people look at the raw data without prejudice.