Team 3663 Data.docxRachelle,
I emailed you our Tableau packaged workbook from Mt. Vernon for you to get an idea what it looks like.
I've also attached a selection of our data here for everyone (as I mentioned in a previous post, I am unable to upload the packaged Tableau workbook on Chief Delphi because it is the wrong file type). In this Word doc, I have 4 different graphs. We used all of these graphs to lobby Team 3238 to pick us for their alliance. We are fairly new to lobbying as well. We tried it without success last year. We're getting better at it and have had two successes now this year. We make a dashboard that contains three or four graphs on it targeted towards how we complement the team we are lobbying.
The first graph is the distribution of points for each team. Team 3238 is clearly the highest in points. We are second with the 2nd highest goal points.
The second graph is a scatterplot of Total Tele Defenses vs. Tele Goal Points. I love scatterplots. They can really put things in perspective. Let's say you were Team 3681 and you were a captain of alliance #5. You have nice goal points but you don't breach much. While 2605 has nice goal points and you might be able to capture the tower with them, you still don't have a breacher. If you think there will be lots of breachers left by the time you get to make your third pick, you can afford to take 2605. If not, you may want to look at 1778, 2907, 4911, etc. You could figure out this without a scatterplot or Tableau, but Tableau makes it easier.
The third graph is one of my favorites. This shows the shooting locations of two of our top rivals for Team 3238's first pick. Team 3238 did not want to have to jockey with its alliance partner for shooting position. We showed them that we like to shoot in their position, but we had 4 places that we routinely shot from, with two of the places being unique to us.
Finally, we used the 4th graph for picking the 3rd robot. Team 3238 wanted a defensive robot but there weren't really any left that had done notable defense in qualification rounds. We knew that we also needed a robot who could cross in auto and challenge on the batter at the end. By the time we got to the 24th pick, Team 568 was the best choice. They did great in eliminations. While they only crossed in autonomous 60% of the time and challenged the batter 40% of the time in qualifications, in eliminations they crossed 100% of the time and challenged 80% of the time. They also did creditable defense.
You asked about preparing for competitions. We went in to Mt. Vernon with data on 30 of the 36 teams we were facing. We used that information until all of the teams had a few matches under their belts. We will do the same at District Championship, video-scouting teams' latest competitions and uploading the data into Tableau. Again, we'll change over to their performance at District Champs solely once we have data from a few matches.
Good luck at your next competition!