Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1460561)

This is an interesting argument. I know we don't have the data to address it directly, but is there are way to examine it by proxy, at least ordinally? For instance, we don't have enough live scouting data, but we do have draft order. If we posit that teams draft based on the real scouting data that OPR attempts to replicate*, are these data available in a form that allows for easy comparison? For instance, I just compared the top 15 OPRs to their draft order at 3 random 2015 events. ("Random" is used here non-technically to mean "the first three I clicked on in TBA".) I found that the average absolute value differences were 2.3, 1.2, and 1.3. The medians were even lower. This seems pretty good to me, but I haven't taken the time to do it more comprehensively or with other years.

Of course, this also only works for the top 24 teams at an event. On the other hand, that's the main reason most teams scout in the first place.

*This is an assumption whose falsity varies year-over-year. And also between events and teams, but I'll assume those variations have negligible effects on the YoY rankings for now.

Originally Posted by Boltman (Post 1460565)

Draft order is flawed too (this year) ..with lack of accurate OPR auto scouting Alliance captains (who rely on OPR) pick VERY flawed bots (usually along with name or uniforms ) and leave good ones un-picked and undrafted..again not a reliable input variable.

There are many past POWERHOUSE teams struggling badly in RR..My favorite local team who was amazing from last year is very limited this year...and rookies have made the finals this year..its a leveling game because it requires...engineering...and live scouting.

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1460570)

Draft order, like OPR, is flawed every year. And live scouting, like all human endeavors, is flawed ever year. Your stated reasons and observations concerning the uniqueness of this game also apply to every year. While the likelihood of captains picking on OPR has probably risen with its popularity, I see no reason to expect that it has skyrocketed this year.

Originally Posted by rich2202 (Post 1460514)

In watching the Wisconsin Regional, I think something close to the economy is similar, but not as you posed (80% outscored the rest combined).

I would guess that 10% of the robots could outscore the bottom 30% combined. But, this is not that different from prior years.

What is different is how much ahead the top 10% is from the next 10%. One top 10% bot can beat an entire alliance from the next 10%.

Originally Posted by SenorZ (Post 1460582)

I did an average of the teams at Los Angeles by groups of 6 (11 groups of 6). The top 6 had an average QA roughly 50% higher than the second tier of 6, and 100% higher than the third tier.

Originally Posted by Boltman (Post 1460565)

There are many past POWERHOUSE teams struggling badly in RR.

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes (Post 1460605)

If a supposed "powerhouse" team is struggling with RR, then they do not meet my definition of a powerhouse team.

In my mind, a powerhouse team is a team that consistently goes far into eliminations at every competition they attend every year. I don't believe that the game matters to true powerhouse teams.

Originally Posted by SenorZ (Post 1460582)

I did an average of the teams at Los Angeles by groups of 6 (11 groups of 6). The top 6 had an average QA roughly 50% higher than the second tier of 6, and 100% higher than the third tier.