Quote:
Originally Posted by Bongle
Also note that teams with great consistency are VERY rare.
Here is a graph I made during a rather heated thread where someone was complaining about the existence of the mythical "first place every year" team.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/at...4&d=1162868157
Notice how a given bracket of performers in one year spread out ALL OVER the performance distribution in the following year. There is SOME correlation: teams that came towards the very bottom in 2005 tended to not win in 2006 (but could still get as high as top 20%). Teams that did very well in 2005 tended to not come dead last in 2006. But that was it. If you placed in the top 10% of 2005 robots, you could've ended up anywhere from first place to top 80% in 2006. There is a great deal of mobility in FIRST.
Note that if there was great consistency from year to year, this graph would be a line from the bottom left corner to the top right corner.
It will be very interesting to make another graph like this one comparing 2005 and 2007. Since both games are 'manipulator' years, then there should be more consistency. |
What about a graph from 1999 (since its the first year of alliances) to the present? Year on one axis, performance level on the other, and each succesful team throughout that time period gets a line that charts their success, even if it would stretch back to a time of limited success.
I agree that consistent teams are rare, however, because if I were to count, I'd probably only end up with 25 teams.
But that's no matter, eh? Because even if there were only one consistent team, then there would still be room to analyze their roads to success, and formulate an effective plan to steer your team down a (possibly) seperate, but coincident path to achieve that same consistent level of success.