Quote:
Originally Posted by Basel A
When making an argument, you must have a solid point, then use the assumption of that point to make your next point. The above is not a solid point. Now, I can't claim it's one way or another, neither from data nor from experience, but just because you think it and have minimal evidence doesn't mean it's true.
Personally, in most years I would be unsure about comparative quality. However, this year I think Michigan is having an above average season.
|
I know its not a solid point just my opinion/prediction. We are all just sharing opinions thats why I qualify it as my belief (others are free to disagree). Often if you dont throw something like IMHO or I believe in then you get someone posting something like "you dont know that" which is true but is moot because no one really knows. Of course your response is much better reasoned and worded, but you also qualify all your statements with "personally", "I think" etc... which is not a solid point as you correctly pointed out. My opinions are based on observations from 2 regionals attended and watching multiple webcasted regionals at once on the other weeks including most of MSC and experience in FIRST that is humble compared to many on this forum.
So since we are both just sharing opinion lets compare. We both agree that MSC is better than any other regional by a good margin. We disagree about whether the MSC elim field is better than the CMP elim field which happens over a week from now in an ever evolving game. My opinion is that the CMP quals will not be as good as MSC because the elim level talent is spread out and I believe good high scoring qual mathces (combined score is a good metric) requires 6 quality bot and good qual strategy that is more prevalent in MI. However, I believe that all divisions will seed well so that most divisions will field a better elim group than MSC. It will still be basically a matter of opinion if the elim field is better because there is very few metric you can use to compare. Combined score is not a very good metric because different effective strategies can produce varying scores, however tracking MI robot performance might be good.
Everything is opinion because we cant produce any good stats to compare regionals. We have combined scores and OPR but those are regional specific and hard to normalise. The graph of regionals is probably not interconnected enough (particularly with MI teams playing at very few outside events) to for a good
Elo style rating system .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basel A
This year, I believe that MSC finals could match Einstein semifinals or even finals. Where else do you get an 18-18 tie, with one robot on each alliance playing defense?
|
As for the MSC finals they were epic and I dont know if Einstein will produce a series with that entertainment value of rubber match in final 4. However, MSC finals a poor example when discussing depth of an elim field, because that is more about the 4 top MSC robots (1918, 469, 67, & 217) with very good 3rd partners (2834 & 2612,
I'm not going to set Jack up) that no other alliances could beat for in a single match (close but no upsets).
As for 18 - 18 with 1 robot per alliance playing defence that really depends on how you interpret defence. I didnt see any robots that were "only playing defence" (trust me I've seen that enough to know it when I see it) just 6 robots playing good strategic roles in that match. I saw 217 blocking 469's shots then shooting them at their blue goals to be scored. All 6 robots contributed significantly to their alliance score while also contributing in at different levels to the defensive effort. Bravo to all the teams, that is a great way to play the game.