Quote:
Originally Posted by inkling16
I have also attached a graph of the top 24 seeds.
My total number of event winners was 313, which is not divisible by 3, probably due to backup teams.
It is interesting that the number of 4th seed winners exceeds the number of 3rd seed winners by an appreciable margin. I wonder what could cause that? It might just be noise though, I'll add in results from the past few years tomorrow.
|
I took your data and divided the number of position winners by total winners/3 to get an idea of the probability of being on the winning alliance based off of ranking position. An interesting (though not unexpected) finding was that typically, #1 position was above 60% likelihood of winning. This makes sense because the #1 ranking spot means you are likely either the best or can pick the best.
I think you can judge the 3 team engagement and/or ranking system by how high the #1 position is. For instance, 2011 (0.66) and 2012 (0.61) were games that could usually be won by 2 really good bots. I am not saying the 3rd did nothing, they were just a significantly lower contributor, and weren't as required to do well (ignoring World champions which had an incredibly influential 3rd partner). For the 2013 (0.56) game, a powerful 3 could overcome a very strong 2 which shows a dip in that probability of the #1 spot as well as the #2 spot. 2014 was even lower with the #1 dipping below 50% (0.49). This is likely the first time since 3v3 that this has occurred. This also makes sense as for 2014, at most regionals, you needed a decent third partner could help overcome a 2 strong team alliance.
For me personally, games like 2013 hit the balance just right for a serpentine style draft. I almost felt that 2014 shifted the balance a bit too much. If I had time, I would love to see difference between events with more than 40 teams and events with 40 and under to see if there is a significant trend difference there.