Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer26
So:
I've taken the 2008 OPR's for Maryland from this Excel file: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2761
and Compared them with the Median Household Income by ZIP code for each of the teams I could find OPR data for in Maryland in 2008 from here: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/cen...zip/index.html
Since the OPR's in that Excel were normalized and many are negative, I added 2 to them so that they were all positive.
Attachment 16343
I can see no particular trend one way or the other that greater socioeconomic status of a team's location correlates to better on-field performance. This is assuming we agree that in 2008, OPR was a good metric for performance, and that the median household income of a team's ZIP is a good metric for the socioeconomic status of a region. |
But did you take into account what type of alliance they were on? I witness last year (our first year) rookies being on a winning alliance with two dominate robots. Were the two dominate teams that carried the alliance higher socioeconomic than the one rookie team? We finished 7th in qualifications as a rookie team and was the highest seeded rookies. It was exciting, however we got there not because we scored a lot of points, but because during qualifications we just go the luck of the draw with good alliances. We contributed 25 or 30 maybe 40 points compared to the winning alliance that could shoot all their Frisbees. One team was a rookie team on the winning alliance. That gives two rookie teams high scores. At least you did try to average it over 6 years. That should help level it out.
While the data is interesting, how they finish is not necessarily based on the build of the robot. I am not trying to take away from anyone and their building. Ours had a lot of wood and we really enjoyed were we ended up as a rookie team and we were fortunate to have the right alliances along the way.