![]() |
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
2 Attachment(s)
It doesn't seem to matter how I redo the matrices, nor whether I use LU or QR decomposition, I keep getting these numbers and they don't match up with the OPRNet.exe data:
My Output Code:
Washington DC RegionalCode:
Solve complete.WARNING: Attachment has some gui bugs. It also creates temp files for every regional/year, so I'd recommend putting it in a folder on its own. It also requires Java 1.6 since it does some neat enumeration and comparator stuff. To run it, just double-click it. |
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
Quote:
|
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
M:
Code:
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Code:
310Code:
1915 |
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
Quote:
I also find it easier to work with the team list sorted from low to high. For instance, with your numbers, I had to sort, transpose, and sort again to match mine. Let us know when it's fixed! :D |
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
Quote:
Thanks for the find, it's fixed! |
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
2 Attachment(s)
Here's the top 25 from Week 1 & 2:
Code:
01. Team 0071 W:7 L:0 OPR:63.55 DPR:13.69 PMR:49.86There's still a couple of bugs, but I'm working on it. === updates === Now attempts to parse data from multiple sources until it gets valid data, in this order: 1.) local html file, 2.) usfirst.org, 3.) tba.net Buckeye data isn't up on USFIRST or TBA, sorry You now have the options to show only the regionals up to a given week You can now rank all teams against each other for the full season (will be fully tested in week 3 when several teams do their second regional) More to come; most of the methods and classes are setup for easy code reuse. |
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
Hmm...not many of the top 25 listed are shooters?
|
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
Quote:
This just goes to show you that top OPR isn't everything when it comes to winning the big matches (though it definitely helps). And when running some extra stats, I just noticed that 2753 has completed 2 regionals but only has OPR data for 1 regional... hmm... that's the first thing to fix! The second thing is to refactor the gui and omi into two separate threadpools so it doesn't lock up when you push the 'print' button. |
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
Quote:
Regardless of what it is sorting by this category results in 3 of the top 5 being regional winners and 5 of the top 7. Here are the top 25 by PMR: Code:
01. Team 0071 W:7 L:0 OPR:63.55 DPR:13.69 PMR:49.86 |
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
The lack of correlation between OPR, DPR, and winning a regional is at first surprising. But if you step back and look at how several regionals have been won so far this year, teamwork and strategy seem to be the common theme.
I believe that in Lunacy, the strength of an alliance is not defined strictly by the sum of its parts. |
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
Quote:
|
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
Quote:
CCWM = Caclulated Contribution to Winning Margin aka PlusMinus Rating, i.e. different calculations to arrive at the same solution. I think you want a high OPR for a first round pick, then a high CCWM for the second round... that is, if you want a high-octane, excitingly offensive alliance (which is my preference). |
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
Quote:
It ends up with a 2N x 2N matrix (for a regional with N teams) sum[team's scores] = weighted sum of OPRs of alliance members minus weighted sum of DPRs of opponents. At first I thought that it would be unsolvable (each equation has 6 unknowns, and you'd end up with 2N unknowns and only N equations), until today I had the fairly-obvious brainwave that each match would give you two equations (one OPRred - DPRblue = scorered for red, one OPRblue - DPRred = scoreblue for blue). This approach seems like it would be more predictive of robot performance than simply doing OPR and DPR separately*. I'm going to try to implement it tonight, but if someone wants to try it themselves and report back, that'd be great. *The problem with the current approach to OPR and DPR, especially in a game like lunacy, is that they assume that a alliance's score comes ENTIRELY from its teams' offensive powers, or ENTIRELY from its opponent's lack of mobility. This proposed new equation seems like it would balance the two, and hopefully give more accurate results. |
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
Quote:
If we look at the system of equations to calculate OPR, it is A * OPR = B(opr) and the system of equations to calculate DPR is A * DPR = B(dpr) The way I solve for CCWM is A * CCWM = B(wm) = B(opr)-B(dpr) A is the same matrix for all 3 systems of equations. I put the winning margin into vector B which is the same as vector B for OPR minus vector B for DPR. Hence the results of CCWM and +/- (PMR) should be identical. Thanks for confirming it Jesse. I never tried it myself. Regards, Ed Law |
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
Quote:
I referenced your work in my white paper. I didn't realize you are mentoring Team 2702 now. I still associated you with Team 1281 in my presentation. I will update it. I really like your insight/explanation how to interpret these rating numbers. I want to discuss with you about correlation between OPR and CCWM/PMR. I think we both agreed that it changes from year to year depending on the game. One way, as you suggest in your post, is to see whether the teams that were alliance captain or got picked and went to the elimination round have higher OPR rankings or higher CCWM/PMR rankings. This will tell us whether teams value pure offensive power or contribution to winning margin when they select teams. Perhaps we should exclude the alliance captains when we do this comparison. Another way to look at correlation is how "predictive" the two different ratings are to outcome of elimination round matches. I did a study of the prediction of match results using OPR and CCWM. Through the first two weeks including those events that have complete data published, in the elimination round, the prediction using CCWM is 59.5% and using OPR is slightly better at 63.6%. One reason the correlation is not that good is because there were a lot of close matches that could have gone either way. We should be careful not to draw conclusions from just one regional. Each of the two ratings correlate better for some regionals but not for others. Regards, Ed Law |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:38. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi