View Single Post
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-05-2013, 23:30
MikeE's Avatar
MikeE MikeE is offline
Wrecking nice beaches since 1990
no team (Volunteer)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: New England -> Alaska
Posts: 381
MikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond reputeMikeE has a reputation beyond repute
Re: An improvement to OPR

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citrus Dad View Post
I haven't seen the SEs posted with the OPR parameters, but I can tell you that the SEs are likely to be VERY large for so few observations--only 8 per team at the Champs, at most 12 in any of the regionals.
Small point: The Pinetree regional in Maine had 13 matches per team in qualifications; one of the reasons it was the Best Regional* of the 2013 season.

Bigger point: I've been playing around with maximum likelihood estimate models as an alternative (really an extension) to OPR, and these do provide both a mean and variance of team contribution. It's not quite ready to write up as a white paper but it's giving some interesting early results from Monte Carlo event simulations.

One more point: I'm a fan of the binary matrix approach to solving the regression described by Ryan since it's easy to add in additional match-by-match features such as average (or per team) score gradient during an event.

* from my very small sample of 4 events