Quote:
Originally Posted by dibblec
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.
|
I don't think that you understand what his graph represents. OPR is not a measure of how well a team finishes. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with elimination matches, only with qualification matches. Also, I don't believe he used a multi-year average. I think he just used the data from 2008 since OPR is generally considered to correlate well to robot ability that year. For more information about OPR, read the presentation referenced in this thread, especially slides 14 onwards.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&highlight=OPR