![]() |
Re: toughest regional in 2011?
Florida BBQ/Sauce
BBQ: 89/61=1.460 Sauce:22/61=.361 21:1(0) 79:8(3) 86:4(0) 103:8(4) 108:2(2) 168:1(1) 179:4(0) 180:4(3) 233:18(4) 341:16(3) 386:2(1) 597:3(0) 665:0(0) 744:0(0) 801:1(0) 945:1(1) 1027:1(0) 1065:0(0) 1251:4(0) 1523:1(0) 1543:0(0) 1557:1(0) 1592:2(0) 1604:0(0) 1612:1(0) 1649:2(0) 1875:0(0) 1902:4(0) 2023:0(0) 2152:0(0) 2383:0(0) 2425:0(0) 2556:0(0) 2564:0(0) 2757:0(0) 2797:0(0) 2916:0(0) 3149:0(0) 3164:0(0) 3242:0(0) 3332:0(0) 3376:0(0) 3410:0(0) Rookies:18 |
Re: toughest regional in 2011?
Quote:
|
Re: toughest regional in 2011?
I'm not putting Autodesk Oregon into the running, but I was curious to see what our other regional was looking like, as well as to provide a comparison between what's reputed to be a top-flight regional (San Diego) with a more average one (Oregon). The difference is quite interesting (at least to scouting geeks like me :cool: ).
Here are the numbers: BBQ: San Diego - 1.1864 Autodesk Oregon - .5667 SAUCE: San Diego - .8983 Autodesk Oregon - .4833 |
Re: toughest regional in 2011?
Quote:
|
Re: toughest regional in 2011?
I know I'm the one that suggested the return of the BBQ/SAUCE metric. I'm wondering if theres a better way to judge regional difficulty.
I say this, because the BBQ/SAUCE method of assessing such will always show regionals at which teams like 1114, 2056, 217, 148, 254, 1625, and so on are in attendance as markedly harder to win. Teams with a disproportionately high number of banners will skew any regional they attend (as has happened with Waterloo and GTR East thanks to 1114.) Any ideas for a better method? |
Re: toughest regional in 2011?
IMO this whole blue banner thing is a wash. What if teams don't submit chairman's at that regional? In general I feel that FLR is undervalued, I am not saying that it is the best. Beeing week one hurts the competition in general. a large # of teams also going to the Rochester Rally preseason event counters this and helps it seem less like a week 1.
|
Re: toughest regional in 2011?
Quote:
2010 saw us picking 217 and 174 to join us in the top-seeded alliance. So now we have a blue banner, but I don't think we're a fundamentally different team than we were in the past. We nailed the strategy for last year's game (though not as well as 469), and built a robot that excelled at enacting that strategy (at least on the first-week regional level... it kinda took a beating and decided to fall apart repeatedly at Championship). Yet there were other teams there that consistently do very well that last year were not all that impressive on the field. My point being that the BBQ might not be all it's SAUCEd up to be -- sometimes teams are very surprising in both good and bad ways. Some teams are consistently awesome every year, teams to look up to and to aspire to be. Some teams are consistently middle-of-the-road in terms of robot performance, but can break out and do great things or break down and do poorly (on the field) in one particular game. A further reason that BBQ might be skewed is that a single robot winning multiple regionals in one year can net a team multiple Blue Banners, while a team that has a robot as good or better that only wins one regional gets only one Blue Banner. Being tournament champions four times in one year, methinks, means a lot less than being tournament champions once for four separate years. It's an interesting metric, but I'm not sure it's a good one for determining regional difficulty... And that's ignoring the fact that the number of data points are so small that if you tried to do any meaningful statistics on them, you'd get GIGO. |
Re: toughest regional in 2011?
Quote:
|
Re: toughest regional in 2011?
well if you really want to put in the work look at karthick's power ratings for each team at each regional
|
Re: toughest regional in 2011?
Quote:
2009 saw us at Einstein with 217 and 68 2010 saw us having a mess of a train train and not even getting into the elims at states (for future reference dont use belts if your planing to get into a pushing match :/) every year is different |
Re: toughest regional in 2011?
Quote:
This is because a regional being hard to win has little to do with CAs EIs or anything else. How well the teams "Get FIRST" has very little to do with how awesome their robot is. I'm not denouncing the validity of these awards, just discounting their merit for the purposes of measuring difficulty. We could call it WAFER: Winner And Finalist Equalizing Rank. You could split it at the 2005 3v3 era, i'm just not sure this has much merit either. Pre-2005 alliances still had 3 teams on them, just 2 on the field. |
Re: toughest regional in 2011?
Quote:
|
Re: toughest regional in 2011?
I think the rookie factor kills everything like 3357, and the two from Canada...so lets wait til we are sitting in the stands watching the compitition to see what the "toughest" regional is :) What you guys think? I think its a good idea
|
Re: toughest regional in 2011?
Quote:
As a side note, I'm really struggling to understand what you are saying with this post. I would strongly suggest utilizing the English language when trying to communicate on these boards. Capitalization and punctuation would also help. |
Re: toughest regional in 2011?
Quote:
Anyway, A better way of ranking regionals would be to average out the winning and losing scores of each match each year, getting a Regional Average for both winning and losing. You'd want a good look at which regional scored the highest losing scores. Teams that scored 50 points and lost > Teams that scored 30 points and lost, and then see which regional scored the highest average points. You'd have to do this for the past 2-3 years as each year's scoring ratio is different. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:18. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi