Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsonmw04
going to go through it this weekend and see what shakes out. I find it humorous that the file that is 32 megs is called "slimdown" :-)
|
Thanks! I'd appreciate having more eyes on it! Yeah, the "slimdown" doesn't drop that much file size... it does drop the extra functionality to easily rank different events that Dan Niemitalo had made... I hadn't yet adapted all the formulas to work with aWAR so I dropped it for now. I would like to add it back in though, as it is really cool!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Smith
I noticed an interesting thing in the team lookup form, there are several teams (just from the few that I checked) where their Championship stats (OPR, rank, win/loss record, etc.) is a direct duplicate of their State/Regional Championship stats. For example, team 469, their Archimedes division stats are a direct duplicate of their MSC stats. The same is true for team 33, team 217, and team 245, but not for ALL MSC teams... I'm not sure if I see a pattern, but I'm really confused. Is this some element of the system that I'm not understanding?
|
Thanks for pointing out the bug... there's probably an issue with the formulas somewhere. Feel free to look into it yourself... I will later too tough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-DOG
Hands down, this is the coolest thing I've seen all season.
As someone who loves ranking everything, this rankings list is like candy to me.
|
Thanks! :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by XaulZan11
Unless I'm mistaken, couldn't the aWAR of 4 be a 4-8 team that won Chairmans award, though? I'd be curious to see the rankings based only on on-field preformance.
|
Yes, that could be... I don't think winning Chairmans would have *that* much of an impact... but I do agree that it would be interesting to have a robot-only version. That was my original goal but it got tabled... the intention was that it would be called rWAR, though. I'll add it in before long... it's an easy-enough addition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IKE
I find the yearly ranking element interesting:
(32%, 29%, 23%, 16%).
On simialr efforts, using a fraction to the exponent of years produces a neat result:
For instance 1/2^year would be (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 or 0.50, 0.25, 0.13, 0.06)... This weighting tends to favor last year's performance heavily with a quick roll-off on history. The neat thing about it is you can use all of history and still not hit 1.0. The bad thing about it is that past 4 years has very little impact.
Using (2/3)^year gets 0.667, 0.444, 0.296, 0.198 which normalized to a sum of 1 would be 0.417, 0.275, 0.185, 0.116. Using this algorithm tends to favor teams with longevity ans consistent high performance, but can also keep a team in the spot-light possibley a year or two after their prime if they have a very strong legacy.
A correlation study would be interesting to dig into.
|
Agreed that the correlation study is worthwhile... thanks Joe Ross!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsegrest
Finally got it. Turned out it was my school firewall blocking the download with no popup warning.
Changed to a different computer not behind the firewall and it worked. Although one more thing I discovered for anyone else who may be having trouble, the page did not want to open in Chrome but opened immediately in Explorer...how's that for weird? 
|
It opened for me in Chrome... maybe not as slow though? Glad you ended up getting it downloaded!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher149
Any chance of saving a copy as .xls (2003 era)? It's too big for Google Docs, and I won't have access to newer Excel until Monday 
|
I can do that... maybe tomorrow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Ross
I did a quick linear regression using the aWAR data from 2008-2012 to predict aWAR in 2013. The R^2 was 0.50.
Code:
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value
Intrcpt 0.3038132 0.052869809 5.746440231 1.23044E-08
2008 -0.000281711 0.032586229 -0.008645104 0.993104123
2009 0.070683871 0.031397538 2.251255225 0.02459942
2010 0.058408153 0.034406836 1.697574055 0.089918829
2011 0.250272535 0.035138483 7.12246277 2.10545E-12
2012 0.427316251 0.033320186 12.82454585 8.15505E-35
This shows that data from 5 years ago is not statistically significant, and 3-4 years old is minimally significant.
|
This would probably argue for only doing the past three years... so maybe we should drop it to 3. I'd be curious if 2009 or 2010 are outliers though... given how much of a drop there is from 2011 to 2010. I have some more thoughts related to this correlation study... I'll comment more when I have time later.
Practice 'bot to finish... :-)