Jay's post above hits the most important point. The first question to ask is "what would you like to do?" Then discuss between all three teams to make the three answers work together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkahl
I would be interested in how other teams deal with potentially over-zealous (for lack of a better word?) qualification partners. By that I mean teams who say they can do something you know they really can't.
For example- in 2014, Taking a ball away from another team in autonomous to run a 2(+) ball auto
How do others remain GP and respectful to other teams while convincing them NOT to do something they really want to do.
In the past I have tried the following:
1) Presenting them with Raw Data to prove their idea is not necessarily the best. I have found this to be very blunt, and while it usually gets the job done, sometimes telling a team they haven't yet scored in auto isn't the most fun thing to do.
2) Playing nice and trying to slowly convince them that while their idea is "good", there may be a better alternative. This usually has less success as pretty much everyone likes to stick to their guns.
|
Great question, but a tough one to answer because it's always a different situation. But there's usually a strategy for mitigating their, uh, over-zealousness. For shooting in 2014, shot accuracy was a pretty strong argument, but tone conveys as much as the actual data. For arguing over who shoots, get to the point where you both equally want to shoot, then check the scouting data. You say "Hmm, looks like our shot percentage is a bit higher..." and let them come to the conclusion themselves. For arguing over auton balls, I'd invoke fairness. Nobody gets an extra ball unless another team wants to give it up.
Sometimes you can just leave them be. I recall a situation in 2015 when one of our partners said they could make 2-3 stacks of totes, and the other partner said they could cap 2-3 stacks of totes. We knew for sure neither team was representing their output accurately, but suggested they work together to make capped stacks because regardless, that's the optimal strategy. I think they ended up with one capped stack, and nobody's feelings got hurt.
The comment from Patricia above is great because it uses their own over-confidence. When you say, "if you miss, let's go low goal for the rest of the match," they're thinking "no way we're gonna miss." Nobody's feelings get hurt and you're really not far from optimal strategy.
Probably over 90% of the time, the match plan negotiated by the strategists on our team ends up being the strategy for the match. In cases where you're trying to slowly move a partner from their plan to yours, "the drive coach disagrees with the strategists" is a great excuse to change things up.