FWIW, I intend to keep compiling this every week. In the off season I'd like to compile it for previous years too to see just where you can draw the line for a "good" FRC robot.
That said, anecdotally, FRC teams are forever optimistic. I have seen nothing that would statistically support tube scoring over minibot scoring at the qualifying level. Using Bongle's excellent OPR calculator, it would seem that there were about 4 robots per event that averaged 30+ points per match. There were typically about 8 that averaged 20+ points per match.
Build a good minibot, and you still might not win every race. However, I find it hard to believe you wouldn't average somewhere between first and second place, and that puts you in the top 8 robots at the event!
Admittedly, scores drastically increase during the elimination phase. While the average total number of points scored in qualifiers was a little under 50, it seems that a very high percentage of week 1 elimination matches had a total score of over 100. Tube ability certainly factors in at this point, and the chance having a field deep enough to pick 2 good tube scoring robots at the regional level is probably pretty slim.
Anecdotally, 3467 seeded 16th and and was the first pick of the 5th alliance at BAE with a consistent minibot and bottom row scoring. I think the fact they couldn't place tubes high was a major issue for them in the elims though.
Can't wait until this weekend!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK
Not sure I agree with that in practice for an overall season of competitions. I think it's still too early to garner any holistic statistical analysis. It will be interesting to watch 2 things:
1.) How each weeks' individual data changes
2.) How the combined data averages out over the overall season
For example, we have to skimp on our minibot deployment because our lift is so heavy. It's so heavy because it has to reach the top row (2 stages). It wasn't really in our capability this year to make the lift lighter, though there are other options for us to pursue if weight is an issue. Yet on build day 2, we decided that since we were competing in a Week 4 regional, and it would be the 2nd regional for many teams, our NEED was to put 1+ logos on the top row; minibot could be secondary. I think we'll see minibots still be factors in match wins, yet overall scores will become higher because of tubes more than minibots. Thus, the weight and effort are worth the 2nd stage for the lift. If we would have attended a week 1 regional, I possibly could have driven the discussion more towards middle row + better minibot.
|