View Single Post
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-05-2015, 19:04
wgardner's Avatar
wgardner wgardner is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 171
wgardner is a splendid one to beholdwgardner is a splendid one to beholdwgardner is a splendid one to beholdwgardner is a splendid one to beholdwgardner is a splendid one to beholdwgardner is a splendid one to beholdwgardner is a splendid one to behold
Re: Incorporating Opposing Alliance Information in CCWM Calculations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Basel A View Post
Won't you simply end up with OPR? OPR does R = C1 + C2 + C3 and B = C4 + C5 + C6. Your suggestion subtracts the second equation from the first, so it's really the same. Or will the solution be different because of the different error term being minimised?
I don't think so. Minimizing (R - (C1+C2+C3))^2 + (B - (C4+C5+C6))^2 is different than minimizing ((R-B) - ((C1+C2+C3)-(C4+C5+C6))^2

Another way to look at it: Say that all Team 2 does is play defense against the opposing alliance and reduce its score by 25 points every time it plays. C2 should be 25 (minus any mean term). But if you only look at C1+C2+C3 as a way to predict R, C2 will look like zero because C2 doesn't affect R. But C2 does affect (R-B) by making B smaller by 25 points, so the new metric should be able to capture this effect.
__________________
CHEER4FTC website and facebook online FTC resources.
Providing support for FTC Teams in the Charlottesville, VA area and beyond.

Last edited by wgardner : 25-05-2015 at 19:08.
Reply With Quote