View Single Post
  #29   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-02-2014, 19:54
Nemo's Avatar
Nemo Nemo is offline
Team 967 Mentor
AKA: Dan Niemitalo
FRC #0967 (Iron Lions)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 805
Nemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New FRC Stat: aWAR

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer26 View Post
One thing I don't really like about the weighted multi-year average is that teams of age < length of your stat rolloff are crippled because they have an aWAR of zero for the years before they existed.

In that case, I think their weighted average should not include the years they didn't exist. (this affects newer strong teams like 4001, 4334, 4814, 4451, 3990, etc)
I'd love to figure out the best way to predict future competitive success based on the combination of years of experience, number of events per year, success in each event, consistency of success, awards, and OPR.

One gets into some tricky gray areas. For example, which team is likely to do better next year: the one that went quarterfinalist & finalist in two events, or the one that was a finalist in a single event? I've been thinking about how to organize all of the data to make it easier to study questions like that, but that's something that won't happen until the summer.

I tend to think that teams that playing in 2+ events correlates with better success, and that teams in their 3rd year or more will tend to perform better than rookies and second year teams. For that reason, I think it makes sense to give extra credit for the seasons that are 3 or 4 years ago, even if it's a small amount. But as to the exact amount it should be, I don't know. Needs to be studied.

Quote:
Teams that have won Chairmans at the championship also are disadvantaged.
On the contrary, I looked them all up and gave them 10 points in each year after they won the Chairman's Award. And one can adjust that figure to whatever value one wants in the Point System worksheet. I guessed that a Hall of Fame team is more likely to do well than a non HoF team in a given year, so I think it is a good adjustment. It's one more thing that would be interesting to study in a regression analysis.