Quote:
Originally Posted by Bongle
Sumadin's included eliminations. It is possible that your alliance partners during eliminations were both scoring below their qualifying performance (which would make sense, given the increased quality of the opposition), and the algorithm 'attributed' that to you. This is why I didn't include eliminations in the ones I ran, they're a whole different beast. It probably isn't a bug in his code, because we both independently developed our own code and our results match, so unless the math foundations we're basing this on are shaky, it's probably an effect of using the finals data.
In other news:
This intrigued me, so I did it for a few more:
GLR: 20/24
Florida: 19/24
VCU: 17/24
So it is a somewhat accurate predictor, but it doesn't take into account that a team's 3rd pick is likely to be a lower-scoring lap bot because of the game only having 2 trackballs. Picking strictly by OPR is a fast way to get eliminated, because you'd probably end up with 3 delicate, relatively slow hurdlers fighting over 2 trackballs, rather than a more-ideal combination of 1 robust lapper/defender and 2 hurdlers.
|
Bongle
Your assumption is correct that Team 86 was a lapbot/defender. Our alliance won the elimination 6-0 at the Florida Regional with scores the ranged from 60 to 116 for 77 point average. I earlier tried to include the use the eliminations for the Florida Regional like Sumadin and the results were very skewed. So the matrices have a problem when the elimination match data is used to solve the matrix. I am still puzzled as to why the eliminations skew the OPR results so drastically (8,8 OPR no elims versus 1.47 OPR with elim)