Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Zondag
Me either, and I'm not convinced yet that I need any new acronyms or methods. Everyone keeps obsessing about who is the best, but this is irrelevant until Einstien. At a real tournament, you don't really need a spreadsheet to tell you who is the best. This is obvious; my mom can tell you who is the best with no data at all. A thousand varied analytical methods will be able to give you the top 8 teams in order.
You do, however, need good data and methods to tell you who is 16th-24th. This is where the real value add of competitve analysis is: not for the first pick, but for the second.
|
Well hindsight is 20/20 but lets look back at the selection for western Michigan where using EMC could have resulted in a very different story, and it all starts with the very first pick.
2054 picks team 67.
2054: ERC- 25 EMC-17 (top minibot and robot)
67: ERC- 20 EMC-8
it looks like an obvious and smart pick but...
in my opinion they overlook one key player which would have changed everything for them.
2767: ERC- 3 EMC-16
Had 2054 picked 2767 they would have had a monopoly over the best minibots. essentially a guaranteed 50 pts each match.
1918 at R: 16 and M:9 would have picked team 67
but finishing 3rd and 4th in the minibot race would have a very tough time beating 2054.
so i think sometimes we even overlook a potential first pick, because we want to form a powerhouse...