[JesseK]

In order to truly align the statistical data with what we should expect from this year's game, we need to figure out which game had similar point values for the game pieces and for the endgame. 2008's scoring happened in one spot for each alliance (except for hybrid mode), so I don't believe 2008's matches provide a valid anaylsis for 2009's midgame. 2008's endgame only provided a maximum of 24 points and also wasn't even an option if the alliance didn't already have great midgame execution potential.

In all honesty, 2007 has the correct structure. Even though the game pieces could be worth more individually, there was in fact a sort of scarcity of them relative to this year. This scarcity combined with the 'factor of two' multiplication will provide a more direct correlation to what we can expect in 2009 midgame results. Also, the endgame point values are identical -- in the last 20 seconds, teams have the opportunity to score 60 points without having to rely on mistakes made by their opponents.

Then, do a statistical analysis on teams who would have lost a match had their endgame point values been slashed in half (alot of research, yes). I know for a fact that the '07 VCU finals and '07 Einstein finals would have had a different outcome. Overall, I'm pretty sure that what we'd find is that alliances who put more emphasis on midgame active robot scoring in teleop would have prevailed over alliances who went for defense/endgame strategies.