Chief Delphi - New Vs Old Qualification 2010

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Scouting (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - New Vs Old Qualification 2010 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84399)

New Vs Old Qualification 2010

I put together a small program that went over very well at the Bayou Regional this year, which computed how each team would have fared under the old qualification system of win/loss/rank vs this year's new coopertition system. At the Bayou we had a monitor with this data available being fed real-time. Several teams were using this program for scouting purposes.

Our team intends to have the same system running on a monitor in the pits at the Nationals this year. It took me a bit to reprogram it from using Twitter to using the FIRST raw data, but now that it is fixed, I thought I would go ahead and run all the regionals so far, and put the data up here.

If any team is interested in the program send me a PM and I'll send you a copy. It is written in Excel and requires a web connection to run. I don't want other teams using my same file in their pits at Nationals, so you gotta ask. :-)

The attached Excel (inside the .zip) file contains all the data from the Regionals so far.

Here's the data for the Bayou:

Bayou Regional:

Code:

NEW TEAM RANKING SYSTEM                                                        LAST YEAR'S TEAM RANKING SYSTEM                                                

PLACE        TEAM        PLAYED        SEED        COOP        HANG                PLACE        TEAM        PLAYED        WIN        LOSS        TIE        RANK

1        1912        10        94        54        2                1        1912        10        8        0        2        1.7

2        1421        10        74        26        0                2        2078        10        8        1        1        1.2

3        2587        10        72        34        2                3        1421        10        7        1        2        1.4

4        2078        10        72        28        0                4        2992        10        6        1        3        1.4

5        2992        10        71        34        2                5        1927        10        7        2        1        1.2

6        2091        10        68        32        2                6        2221        10        6        1        3        1.1

7        3411        10        68        22        2                7        1477        10        6        1        3        0.6

8        2920        10        67        24        2                8        1339        10        6        3        1        1.4

9        1927        10        66        24        12                9        3039        10        5        2        3        0.8

10        1339        10        63        18        4                10        2080        10        5        3        2        1.4

11        2221        10        59        30        0                11        2587        10        5        3        2        1.2

12        2080        10        58        18        0                12        3337        10        4        2        4        1

13        2190        10        54        14        4                13        2091        10        3        2        5        1.6

14        231        10        54        14        4                14        3411        10        4        4        2        1.7

15        2206        10        52        10        2                15        2817        10        4        4        2        0.8

16        364        10        51        8        0                16        1398        10        4        4        2        0.6

17        1398        10        50        18        2                17        231        10        3        4        3        1.7

18        57        10        49        14        0                18        2556        10        3        4        3        1.1

19        3337        10        45        16        2                19        2920        10        4        5        1        1.1

20        2973        10        44        10        4                20        2206        10        4        5        1        0.8

21        2242        10        44        10        0                21        3364        10        3        4        3        0.6

22        1477        10        42        20        0                22        57        10        3        5        2        1.4

23        2817        10        42        12        2                23        2190        10        3        5        2        1.2

24        3228        10        41        12        2                24        364        10        3        5        2        1

25        2815        10        41        6        0                25        3228        10        3        5        2        1

26        2183        10        40        6        2                26        1348        10        1        3        6        0.7

27        2173        10        37        10        0                27        2242        10        3        5        2        0.7

28        3039        10        36        12        0                28        462        10        2        4        4        0.3

29        1818        10        36        4        2                29        2173        10        2        5        3        0.9

30        1348        10        34        8        2                30        1304        10        2        5        3        0.5

31        3364        10        33        10        0                31        2183        10        2        6        2        0.9

32        462        9        33        8        0                32        1818        9        2        6        2        0.2

33        2975        10        33        0        0                33        2973        10        1        6        3        1.2

34        1304        9        29        8        0                34        1920        9        1        6        3        0.7

35        1920        10        29        0        0                35        2815        10        1        6        3        0.6

36        2556        9        25        0        4                36        2975        9        1        7        2        0.3

It's interesting to see some of the swings from top to bottom depending on which ranking system is used. I think last year's is easier to understand for a layman, but I guess we'll see how this year's plays out.

Re: New Vs Old Qualification 2010

Does the program properly calculate the old Ranking Point score?

Re: New Vs Old Qualification 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 939305)

Does the program properly calculate the old Ranking Point score?

Yes, Using 2009 Rules for Ranking Score

Re: New Vs Old Qualification 2010

Data for WPI I am not sure if RP and QP were the right terms from last year but RP is from wins/ties, and QP is from opponents scores.

This information was pretty useful in my evaluation of my teams performance, I thought we seeded low for what we did in qualifications. This shows that my gut feeling was right. My mistake was assuming that we could play the same way my teams have in years past and still be successful, that is clearly not the case. Now we can reevaluate our strategy before Boston.

Code:

Team        Wins        Loss  Ties     RP       QP        Games Played

3280        9        2        1        19        13        12

230        8        2        2        18        20        12

20        9        3        0        18        14        12

2370        8        3        1        17        13        12

190        7        3        2        16        17        12

1735        7        4        1        15        18        12

2621        6        3        3        15        16        12

172        6        3        3        15        12        12

195        6        4        2        14        18        12

2791        5        4        3        13        15        12

2079        5        4        3        13        11        12

358        6        5        1        13        10        12

348        4        3        5        13        9        12

2877        5        5        2        12        21        12

2104        5        5        2        12        16        12

2523        5        5        2        12        6        12

3273        4        5        3        11        12        12

663        5        6        1        11        8        12

3125        4        6        2        10        21        12

1687        3        5        4        10        13        12

1124        4        6        2        10        6        12

1995        4        7        1        9        20        12

529        3        6        3        9        11        12

716        3        6        3        9        9        12

157        3        6        3        9        8        12

3205        3        8        1        7        15        12

228        2        7        3        7        12        12

839        1        7        4        6        15        12

571        1        8        3        5        5        12

Re: New Vs Old Qualification 2010

Your WPI data is at least partly incorrect. Look at 2791 versus 172. Why do they have the same amount of RP?

Re: New Vs Old Qualification 2010

From Last Year's Tournament Rules:

Code:

9.3.4

Match Qualifying Points

At the completion of each qualification match, each team will receive a win, loss or tie depending on the final score:

•

Each team on the winning ALLIANCE will receive two (2) qualifying points.

•

Each team on the losing ALLIANCE will receive zero (0) qualifying points.

•

In the event of a tied score, all six teams will receive one (1) qualifying point.



9.3.5

Match Ranking Points

All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to the un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.

All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to their final score (with any assessed penalties).

In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a number of ranking points equal to their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).



9.3.7

Qualifying Score

The total number of qualifying points earned by a TEAM throughout their qualification matches will be their qualifying score. © FIRST 2009 FIRST Robotics Competition Manual, Section 9 – The Tournament, Rev A Page 3 of 10



9.3.8

Ranking Score

The total number of ranking points earned by a TEAM throughout their qualification matches, divided by the number of MATCHES played (excluding any surrogate matches), then truncated to two decimal places, will be their ranking score.

Basically you get 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, and 0 points for a loss. The Ranking Score is the average of all of your opponents scores. In theory the ranking score is based on unpenalized scores to a degree, but since FRC doesn't have the penalties and hanging bonuses listed anywhere except on Twitter (which is incomplete since it is missing matches), I just used the final scores of the opponents.

Re: New Vs Old Qualification 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 939336)

Your WPI data is at least partly incorrect. Look at 2791 versus 172. Why do they have the same amount of RP?

My program counted the last match twice, a win for 2791 I thought I had fixed the problem but apparently I missed that, it is updated and correct now.

Re: New Vs Old Qualification 2010

Will not let me edit the original post anymore. Attached is the latest Regional Summary of all regionals played so far.

The file at the top had an error in some of the regionals. That error has been corrected and all the new regionals from this weekend are in the new file.

I intend to update this after every weekend from here through Nationals so look for your regional soon if you haven't played it yet.

Re: New Vs Old Qualification 2010

No michigan... :( why are we always left out of statistics?

Re: New Vs Old Qualification 2010

There is a problem with the San Diego data. Team 691 shows 10 matches at 9-1-1 in first place using old method. Also, all the teams that show less than 10 matches have a w-l-t sum equal to 10. Do all of the missed matches show as loses? Or is the number of matches wrong, Blue Alliance shows team 100 with 10 matches.

Re: New Vs Old Qualification 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718 (Post 941207)

No michigan... :( why are we always left out of statistics?

The last time I looked at Michigan the FRC standings or match data was incomplete. I will look again and see if its updated and get that out tomorrow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwood359 (Post 941235)

This is one reason I wanted to get the data out there, to find any errors. I will look at this regional with the data you've provided tomorrow and see if I can find a satisfactory answer.

Thanks everybody for your comments. I hope to have this fully functional and in our pits at the Nationals.

Re: New Vs Old Qualification 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by sircedric4 (Post 941244)

The last time I looked at Michigan the FRC standings or match data was incomplete. I will look again and see if its updated and get that out tomorrow.

This is one reason I wanted to get the data out there, to find any errors. I will look at this regional with the data you've provided tomorrow and see if I can find a satisfactory answer.

Thanks everybody for your comments. I hope to have this fully functional and in our pits at the Nationals.

Michigan was left out because I forgot to look in the District events category. I am as about as far south as you can get from you so I tend to forget Michigan's on a different system. The Michigan District data is now in the file if you want to look at it.

The reason the match numbers are wrong in San Diego (its also wrong in Finger Lakes) is because it is wrong in the standings from FIRST. I calculate all my stuff correctly in the old data, but when it comes time to print out the data I just use the FIRST match data column from the new system. FIRST is doing something wrong in their code when calculating number of matches. I have fixed my code to use my own match counting system for future iterations but I am not going to rerun all the regionals for a misprint. The calculations are right as they stand, that one column maybe wrong depending on FIRST.

Re: New Vs Old Qualification 2010

The WPI Data is also incorrect for some reason the last match is not included in the rankings on the FIRST website. They had this problem at the reginal and had to redo the first round of selections because some of the teams were not seeded correctly.

Re: New Vs Old Qualification 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesBrown (Post 941637)

I certainly remember that, and the overexcited trip to Pit Admin as it was happening...

For what it's worth, the match was I believe 7 - 3 pre penalty.