View Single Post
  #83   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-07-2015, 19:24
Rachel Lim Rachel Lim is offline
Registered User
FRC #1868 (Space Cookies)
Team Role: Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Rookie Year: 2014
Location: Moffett Field
Posts: 253
Rachel Lim has a reputation beyond reputeRachel Lim has a reputation beyond reputeRachel Lim has a reputation beyond reputeRachel Lim has a reputation beyond reputeRachel Lim has a reputation beyond reputeRachel Lim has a reputation beyond reputeRachel Lim has a reputation beyond reputeRachel Lim has a reputation beyond reputeRachel Lim has a reputation beyond reputeRachel Lim has a reputation beyond reputeRachel Lim has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Top 5 robots in each state

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citrus Dad View Post
1671 underperformed during Newton qualifications relative to what they did in their two regionals. They seeded 2nd at Sac ahead of us. This year CA was dominated by NorCal teams (adding 973 to that group for convenience). 2085 and 701 may have been better than any of the SoCal teams as well given what I saw on the webcasts. 1717 wasn't the best of the SoCal teams this year. It's hard to measure how they did because their division was relatively weak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard View Post
I mean they were making 3 stacks out of the landfill in their best matches. That to me seems objectively better than 3 stacks out of the feeder, like 971, and definitely better than the 2 from 2085 and the 2? from 701. You could put 973 above them, sure. Maybe even put 971 above them due to the wicked fast can grabbers. But they definitely go above the other California teams.

And Carver wasn't that weak. 971, 1986, 368 were some of the best there was.
My data from a while back, from the other thread:
Code:
Team	Stacks	Number	Height	Auto	Notes

254	LF + HP	1 + 2-3	6T+C+N	3T	Both LF+HP (total stacks 3-4)
1678	HP	3	5T+C+N	3T/2C
1671	HP	3	6T+C+N	
971	HP	2-3	6T+C+N	2C
2085	HP	2	6T+C	
701	HP	2	6T+C

3476	HP	3	6T+C+N	
973	LF/HP	2-3	6T+C/+N	2C	Either LF or HP, 6T+C for LF, 6T+C+N for HP
1717	LF	2-3	6T+C	3T
3309	LF	2-3	6T+C	3T
330	HP	2-3	6T+C
If I had to norcal / socal together, I'd get something like:
1. 254
2. 1678
3.5. 971/973 (could be higher because of cangrabbers)
3.5. 1671/3476 (could be higher because of stacking power)
5. 1717/3309

What I found interesting was that norcal seemed to focus way more on HP loading than socal (at least from what I've seen). Of the first 4 alliances' captains and first picks (254/1678, 2085/971, 368/846, 670/1280) the only team to focus on the landfill was 368, who isn't from CA.

I agree that Carver wasn't weak. 971/1717 were both really strong but their alliance seemed to suffer in playoffs from connection issues or something (they had a few matches where one of them wasn't moving). The winning/finalist alliances were also great (368/359/337/144 and 233/1718/4039/1425--it was particularly fun to watch the second because they all did stacks in parts, so they worked together to make 6 stacks), and if I remember correctly, 1986's alliance was also doing very well but couldn't make up for a dropped stack in the quarters.

*Disclaimer: Carver was the only division where I saw any qualification matches, since that was where we were competing, and one of two (Curie was the other) where I saw playoffs.
Reply With Quote