I've edited the first post with a link to the spreadsheet. Let me know if the link doesn't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter
So, if I'm to understand this correctly, you're using/developing a statistic called MCC, which you're intending to make similar to WAR?
|
As far as I know, thee MCC idea originated in
this thread, started Ike, formerly of Team 33. I don't think of MCC as a statistic; the threads talk about the minimum requirements for a robot to be competitive on Saturday afternoon. But I do think that type of thinking could lead to some sort of "replacement level" definition for FRC that could be used in a stat similar to WAR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter
What are you trying to have the metric include? Just on-field performance? General team greatness (basically adding the Chairmans/spirit/GP dimension)?
|
I guess the basic idea is to predict which teams will be generally good in 2014, especially in terms of on-field performance. Awards presumably have some predictive ability; I'm assuming that based on the fact that Zondag and the others on the district points system team did some regression analysis to put their system through the paces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter
If I understand correctly, you then found that to be equal to about 15pts in this statistic you've developed (are you calling it Performance Index, currently?). 40% of FRC teams have a Performance Index of less than 15pts. You then subtracted 15pts from everyone's Performance Index to determine their Performance Index Above Replacement. I assume you allowed teams to have a negative Performance Index Above Replacement (but with a min of -15, since you capped it to 0 on the Performance Index), correct?
|
I didn't give out any negative values for performance index, and I did give it a minimum of zero after subtracting. Mainly I think the point values at those levels are mostly noise, and I also wasn't in the mood to assign a negative contribution to any teams.