I think anyone that was at West Michigan or saw the webcast would agree that picking 67, even for just a minibot would have been a better choice. Ours was just as reliable and faster.
Our minibot was launched in 15 of our 18 matches...the other three where it did not were from other issues that resulted in failed launches early in the competition or being essentially disabled (last match). Plus the one elim match where it hit first but did not register.
No offense to 2767, but they were not carrying teams with scoring...in fact they were basically just a defender and minibot for most of the competition...so yes that had a very very dependable minibot. But not the "best" at the WM.
67 and 2054 had the fastest and most reliable minibots there. We would have launched them for #1 and #2 in any match we were both fully functioning in (my opinion, don't ask 1918 or 27
) .
As for having another metric to judge teams on...I think it would be good if it was accurate, but more so for the later picks and only if you were actually watching all the competition matches.
I will have to pull our scouting data for what positions our minibot finished in each match and see what our actual minibot point contribution was.
I know in some matches we just launched late in the count and allowed our partners to finish first. We did not get on the trigger button quickly until late Saturday morning and into the afternoon.