It was really the only option for #1. I just watched the higher scoring semifinals match of each alliance again, and counted up teleop high goals for each robot:
- 2056: 6*
- 118: 5*
- 33: 5*
- 1114: 4
- 195: 10
- 225: 5
*Had a hard time seeing a bit of the match when the camera focused on the 1619/133 tipping debacle.
In addition, #2 had an additional scale over #1.
When both alliances run triple offense, math says that #2 outscores #1 (barring something as dramatic as 195's auto failing, which is not something to count on). By putting 33 on defense, they free up easy-to-grab boulders for 2056/118 to score, let's say, 3 extra goals (guesstimate). If 33 defending prevents #2 from scoring 3 boulders, it is worth it. With 1114 shooting only from the batter and 195 preferring a (reasonably defendable) shot in the left courtyard (not that they don't shoot well from other locations, they just do their best in that one), taking three high goals off this alliances doesn't seem like a particular difficult task (with some skilled driving, of course).
Considering that:
- Alliance #2 scored 13 and 14 teleop high goals in finals; under 33's defense, they scored 5-6 fewer goals
- Alliance #1 scored 18 teleop high goals in both finals matches, 1-2 more than with 33 playing offense, so 2056/118 scored 5-6 (!) more goals
having 33 play offense was not only a
smart idea, but
necessary for #1 to be able to outscore #2 and take the win. Props to 33 for being willing to play defense and the alliance as a whole for realizing the advantage it would confer.
These eliminations matches leave me with one big question:
why did 2056 choose 118 over 195? Not that the Robonauts don't have a phenomenal robot, but looking at scouting data, 195 seems to have been the bot with both more consistency and a higher ceiling, especially considering 2-ball auto. I think it may have been due to 2056 playing with 118 earlier in the year at GTR-East, but I'd love some insight as to why they chose the way they did.