Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   [FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week) (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145529)

Hallry 10-03-2016 15:43
[FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)
 
Posted on the FRC Blog, 3/10/16: http://www.firstinspires.org/robotic...umbers-we-dont

Quote:
Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)

Written by Frank Merrick, 2016 MAR 10

So, Where Are Those District Points, Frank?

Folks visiting the District Rankings site will notice a ‘Coming Soon’ message for the 2016 information. We’re sorry for the delay, but we are currently verifying the algorithm and process to make sure all is working correctly before we post. All District points, including those from this coming weekend’s events, should be available by next Wednesday, March 16th. The good news is that once we’re up and running, District points and rankings will update live during events, so you can get up to the minute information at any time.

24

The number of events we have running this weekend. That’s a record, and a whole lotta FIRST STRONGHOLD. You want your FIRST STRONGHOLD? You got your FIRST STRONGHOLD. A metric ton of FIRST STRONGHOLD. A mountain of FIRST STRONGHOLD. You can check out webcasts of events at NASA or The Blue Alliance, and watch until your eyes are begging for sweet release.

90% (ish)

On average, the number of different field combinations used at individual events as a percent of the number of matches played at those events. This number may not be exact, as our programming/numbers folks are a bit busy right now on higher priority activities, but this is the rough cut. Most field-diverse event? PNW Auburn Mountainview at 97%. Least diverse? FiM Waterford at 78%. It will be interesting to see, as strategies develop this season, how this value changes (or not) over the weeks. Or, maybe we can come up with a better field-diversity metric. Suggestions welcome.

969

The number of respondents to our Week 1 event survey, which was sent out to all teams that attended Week 1 events. This is not a scientific survey by any means, it just helps us get a little bit of an idea of what FIRST's key customers, the teams, think of the game and the events they attended. Here are the responses to Q15 “Please rate the overall quality of the FIRST STRONGHOLD game”



As a reference point, for Week 1 of RECYCLE RUSH, we had 5.4% rate the game ‘Very Poor’, 10.8% ‘Poor’, 27.8% ‘Fair’, 40.3% ‘Good’, and 15.7% ‘Very Good’. As I noted above, this is not a scientific survey, but it does seem as if the survey respondents think this year’s game is a step in the right direction.

273,228

As of this writing, the number of times the FIRST STRONGHOLD game animation has been viewed on the FRC YouTube Channel. With 1,392 ‘Likes’ and 38 ‘Dislikes’, if those numbers mean anything to anyone.

Good luck at those Week 2 events!

Frank

IndySam 16-03-2016 20:21
Re: [FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)
 
Well?

Trying to Help 16-03-2016 21:35
Re: [FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)
 
Still no 2016 numbers. I understand that they have a lot of work to do and when I've called FIRST this week about something unrelated to the district rankings, the staff took plenty of time to answer my questions. So I patiently hit refresh.

Richard Wallace 16-03-2016 23:27
Re: [FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndySam (Post 1558534)
Well?
Don't you believe TBA?

Trying to Help 16-03-2016 23:36
Re: [FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)
 
I'll take the high ranking while I can. :)

IndySam 16-03-2016 23:37
Re: [FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Wallace (Post 1558665)
Don't you believe TBA?
No

Oblarg 16-03-2016 23:45
Re: [FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)
 
Does anyone know if district ranking points are adjusted to account for differences in numbers of matches played between districts? The Greater DC district lost a bunch of quals matches due to field faults resulting in lengthy delays.

PayneTrain 16-03-2016 23:53
Re: [FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblarg (Post 1558683)
Does anyone know if district ranking points are adjusted to account for differences in numbers of matches played between districts? The Greater DC district lost a bunch of quals matches due to field faults resulting in lengthy delays.
if only we could consult the internet to find answers to life's grand mysteries :D

It's section 7.4.1. Good luck with the math; I find it terrifying

SteveGPage 17-03-2016 00:09
Re: [FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblarg (Post 1558683)
Does anyone know if district ranking points are adjusted to account for differences in numbers of matches played between districts? The Greater DC district lost a bunch of quals matches due to field faults resulting in lengthy delays.
They way the formula works, the highest ranked team, whether they are in 10 matches or 12, will get 22 ranking points. The lowest will get 4. The formula spreads the points out between those two end points. So they don't need to adjust the scores for the DC Event. We don't get per match points during quals, only during elims. Some of my mentors were worried about the same thing until I showed them the spreadsheet I built with all the calculations.

I have the DC rankings (and ONLY the DC rankings!) based on the calculations in the Admin manual. PM if you want the current rankings I have, which do differ from TBA in a few places.

Oblarg 17-03-2016 00:18
Re: [FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveGPage (Post 1558699)
They way the formula works, the highest ranked team, whether they are in 10 matches or 12, will get 22 ranking points. The lowest will get 4. The formula spreads the points out between those two end points. So they don't need to adjust the scores for the DC Event. We don't get per match points during quals, only during elims. Some of my mentors were worried about the same thing until I showed them the spreadsheet I built with all the calculations.

I have the DC rankings (and ONLY the DC rankings!) based on the calculations in the Admin manual. PM if you want the current rankings I have, which do differ from TBA in a few places.
Thank you for the info, this is going to assuage a lot of fears on our team.

Jeffrafa 18-03-2016 14:09
Re: [FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)
 
Looks like FIRST's District Rankings for 2016 are now live..

I haven't looked at other districts, but I noticed a discrepancy for PNW when comparing to TBA rankings . Three teams have 10 points less on the official FRC site than on TBA. All 3 were part of Auburn Mountainview Alliance 2 (2046, 2522, 5937). Each were given only 10 playoff points on the official FRC site despite finishing as Finalists. Per 7.4.1.3, they each should have been granted 20 points (10 for exiting QF, 10 for exiting SF) so long as they all participated in the QF and SF playoff matches.

Am I missing something? It seems to me TBA has it correct in this case.

Eugene Fang 18-03-2016 15:56
Re: [FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrafa (Post 1559423)
Looks like FIRST's District Rankings for 2016 are now live..

I haven't looked at other districts, but I noticed a discrepancy for PNW when comparing to TBA rankings . Three teams have 10 points less on the official FRC site than on TBA. All 3 were part of Auburn Mountainview Alliance 2 (2046, 2522, 5937). Each were given only 10 playoff points on the official FRC site despite finishing as Finalists. Per 7.4.1.3, they each should have been granted 20 points (10 for exiting QF, 10 for exiting SF) so long as they all participated in the QF and SF playoff matches.

Am I missing something? It seems to me TBA has it correct in this case.
I do believe they should have 20 playoff points as well.

My guess (based off no real evidence whatsoever) is that FIRST isn't implementing playoff tiebreakers correctly, thus their code naively assume 2046, 2522, and 5937 didn't win their QF series (since they only have one "win" based on the final score) and doesn't assign points to them. This is just a hypothesis though.

Jeffrafa 18-03-2016 17:32
Re: [FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugene Fang (Post 1559469)
I do believe they should have 20 playoff points as well.

My guess (based off no real evidence whatsoever) is that FIRST isn't implementing playoff tiebreakers correctly, thus their code naively assume 2046, 2522, and 5937 didn't win their QF series (since they only have one "win" based on the final score) and doesn't assign points to them. This is just a hypothesis though.
Huh, that's an interesting observation - I think you may be on to something. I had not noticed they advanced out of quarterfinals off of a tiebreaker in match 3.

I am still finding my way around the information available on FIRST's new event results website, but I did find on this playoffs result page that it shows 2-1 for W/L on Alliance 2 in Quarterfinals. Without seeing what they are using to calculate district points, this doesn't rule out your hypothesis, just shows that they are identifying QF3T as a win based on the tiebreaker criteria.

Almost more interesting from the alliance results table on the playoffs page is the Octofinal W/L column - has there ever been a FIRST event where playoffs included Octofinals?

Thad House 18-03-2016 17:34
Re: [FRC Blog] Numbers We Have and Numbers We Don't (But Will Next Week)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrafa (Post 1559506)
Huh, that's an interesting observation - I think you may be on to something. I had not noticed they advanced out of quarterfinals off of a tiebreaker in match 3.

I am still finding my way around the information available on FIRST's new event results website, but I did find on this playoffs result page that it shows 2-1 for W/L on Alliance 2 in Quarterfinals. Without seeing what they are using to calculate district points, this doesn't rule out your hypothesis, just shows that they are identifying QF3T as a win based on the tiebreaker criteria.

Almost more interesting from the alliance results table on the playoffs page is the Octofinal W/L column - has there ever been a FIRST event where playoffs included Octofinals?
MSC has Octofinals.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi