Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me
I would say it is totally wrong for anyone but 469 to get the title in 2010, and it's totally wrong for anyone in 2011 to get the title since the year became so even. Even 2012 was very close at the high level.
|
I feel like a robot that relies on their partners to win shouldn't be called dominant. Yes, 469 excelled at winning. In elimination rounds, when the #1 side snatched them up to complement their scoring. At Cass Tech (their first district event), their average qualification alliance score was 3.69. By comparison, 217, the #1 seed at Cass Tech, had an average alliance score of 6.42. A significant difference between the #1, undefeated team, and their 6-4-2 first pick.
At MSC, where 469 had their highest average qualification alliance score, it sat at a resounding 13.75. Again, in comparison, 1918, the #1 seed, averaged 12.33 in qualification matches. Yes, 469 beats out their captain in this one, but 469's standard deviation was 7.18, while 1918's was 5.5. What that means is, 1918 was more consistent in their scores than 469 was.
Now, I know you can't judge a robot by their alliance scores. But looking at the alliances and results, 469's higher end scores came mostly when paired with another strong robot, such as 67, 33, 217 and 1918. Their average alliance scores in elimination rounds (with the #1 seed at their events) blow their other scores out of the water.
I know it's a very subjective stance, but I find it hard to say 469 was the most dominant team in 2010 when they relied to heavily on their alliance partners.
I guess a difference in definitions is causing a lot of conflict, especially in 469's case. I see a dominant robot as one that not only wins, but continues to win despite the quality of their alliance partners. In other words, a robot that garners a majority of their wins on their own, unaided.