Quote:
Originally Posted by lineskier
OPR has actually the product of collaborative work done by many individuals who are still on CD ( I know Jim Zondag worked on it, and he is still very active in the CD community)
|
The origin of OPR was not a collaborative effort. I was talking about who coined the term and first proposed it. From what I can find, it was Scott Weingart from Team 293 in this post dated 4/6/2006,
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...0&postcount=19. He is no longer active on CD as his last post was 4/13/2007.
I was not talking about who use it. Many people use it as a supplement to match scouting. Yes it is very simple matrix algebra and many have written their own programs to calculate it. If implemented correctly, the OPR numbers for each regional/district should be identical.
I am glad to see you proposing a new way of ranking teams. I always welcome innovation. However I do have serious concern about your method. This is not a personal attack so please don't be defensive. I just want to point out a few things so you can improve your algorithm if you choose to. I am not saying OPR is better. I am not defending OPR as I don't own it. In the end, you look at how numbers are calculated and you choose what you think will work for you.
1) One of my concern is if a team has a bad first match for whatever reason and that team's alliance score zero points. Then the next time this team play, according to your algorithm, you will assume that this team does not contribute much to whatever the score was for their second match. Please correct me if I misunderstood your algorithm.
2) I also read someone suggested to you that it should be iterative, i.e. loop back and have a second pass and third pass etc. I don't know if you tried this or not. An iterative method is fine as long as it converges. If it diverge or oscillate, then there is something wrong. In your method, does it always converge and if yes how many iterations typically before it converges. Have you compared the converged value to OPR? Are they close to each other?
3)One of the point you advocate about your method was considering match to match effect rather than a big picture like OPR. When you iterate, it is no longer just match to match. This is somewhat analogous to finite difference method. You are actually getting the effect of all the matches when you loop back and iterate.
4) If you argue that it should not iterate, then the final number is too dependent on your starting value and the method will not be mathematically valid.
I hope you will find a way to improve it so we will all benefit from a better way to rank teams.