[Bryce2471]

Although I appreciate and use OPR for forecasting and comparing teams, I would have to be stupid to use just OPR to pick an alliance. Any quantitative metric is going to put 973 at the bottom. How can you expect any quantitative system to account for robots that don't function properly or to their full potential in a large quantity of qualification matches?

I will continue to agree to disagree with your general premises. I will also continue to utilize the systems in place until someone provides a better quantitative metric substitute.

Navid,
I agree. That there is a general rule that OPR does not correctly represent teams with some strategies. I also agree that it is a highly interesting and useful metric most of the time. I was just wondering if it was another general rule that it's easier a team with good alliance partners to get a high OPR than a team with not so good partners?

While I do agree that OPR can underrate these types of teams, I think we're all forgetting exactly how OPR works. Teams that consistently play on high scoring alliances will continue to get a higher OPR. Thus, teams who are very good at facilitating alliance partners, (Strong inbounding, passing, catching, etc) will eventually rise to the top. As Sean mentioned earlier, the sample size may not be large enough to filter out all the issues that Jarred mentioned above, but it's still a pretty decent metric, and definitely a useful tool when analyzing the results of an event where you have no/limited access to match video, or no time to watch and breakdown all the video.

Karthik,
Again, I completely agree. But i'm just wondering if in general, a team could get a high OPR more easily by going to a more competitive event?