OPR after Week Four Events

[Ed Law]

The OPR/CCWM numbers up to Week 4 events have been posted, please see

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2174

All events up to Week 4 are now included. I also added the score of match 72 of New York and recalculated the OPR/CCWM.

If you find any error or have any questions, please let me know.

[Ether]

FWIW:

I was playing around with OPR and put together this spreadsheet.

For each of the 3,833 Qual matches played so far, it shows the actual match score and the "expected" score based on the OPR of the teams in each alliance.

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by Ether

FWIW:

I was playing around with OPR and put together this spreadsheet.

For each of the 3,833 Qual matches played so far, it shows the actual match score and the "expected" score based on the OPR of the teams in each alliance.

Is this done with the OPR at the time of the match. Because on more than one occasion our expected score is actually lower than our OPR alone?

What was the process used to do this?

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

What was the process used to do this?

How soon could this be generated after the qualifying matches are posted?

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Ether

FWIW:

I was playing around with OPR and put together this spreadsheet.

For each of the 3,833 Qual matches played so far, it shows the actual match score and the "expected" score based on the OPR of the teams in each alliance.

Can't find an easy way to say it, but:
Predicted OPR match results match actual match results 82% of the time (3142 out of 3833).

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by efoote868

Can't find an easy way to say it, but:
Predicted OPR match results match actual match results 82% of the time (3142 out of 3833).

Is it more likely to be over the expected result or under the expected result.

[Hoover]

My question is badly stated. How soon can projected results be generated once the qualifying schedule is published. How easy is this to do? I can do it myself if possible.

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by Hoover

My question is badly stated. How soon can projected results be generated once the qualifying schedule is published. How easy is this to do? I can do it myself if possible.

Starting from row 154 are the qualification matches. Column L and M is the prediction of each match. However it cannot predict match results until there are data. It needs a few matches before it will even be able to solve the equations. To get accurate and meaningful numbers, I think you need at least 4 to 5 matches.

The over 80% accuracy is after all the qualifying matches are available. A least square fit is used which is why the error is minimized. The number is even more impressive if you consider the close matches that can swing either way. During the qualifying matches, even after 4 to 5 matches, the prediction is not as accurate. But it is the best method there is and that is what most people use. I have not done any studies but the accuracy should be over 66% this year and the later matches will get more and more accurate.

Ether, this is another interesting challenge for you.

However there is another way to do this. It is by using historical OPR or projected OPR. But it only works with all 6 teams in that match has played in another event.

[Chris Hibner]

What I would be interested in is a comparison between OPR for an event, and actual average points scored for each robot. This, of course, means that a very accurate log of all robots for all matches is needed. Anyone have that data? (Before we get flamed for poor scouting, we don't keep track of ALL robots in ALL matches. The majority, yes - but not all.)

We make videos of all of our matches so we can go back and look for improvements in the robot and the driving. Using the videos, I've kept track of all of the points our robot scored during qualifications at both of our districts so far. OPR has been within 10% of our actual average at both events.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

What I would be interested in is a comparison between OPR for an event, and actual average points scored for each robot. This, of course, means that a very accurate log of all robots for all matches is needed. Anyone have that data? (Before we get flamed for poor scouting, we don't keep track of ALL robots in ALL matches. The majority, yes - but not all.)

We make videos of all of our matches so we can go back and look for improvements in the robot and the driving. Using the videos, I've kept track of all of the points our robot scored during qualifications at both of our districts so far. OPR has been within 10% of our actual average at both events.

We are starting to do that analysis for Grand Blanc. I have done it on a piece-meal basis for many other teams and the +/-10 is a pretty good rule of thumb this year, but there have been a handful of outliers (as to be expected). At Waterford, on firday night scouting, a team had an OPR between 15 and 20 pts (after 8 matches), but they were not even on the field for about 6 of those matches.

And of course our "actuals" are only as accurrate as the scouts. In general, they do a really good job, but I do frequently find errors (one scout recorded 33 putting up 8 discs in auton )

[stingray27]

Originally Posted by Hoover

My question is badly stated. How soon can projected results be generated once the qualifying schedule is published. How easy is this to do? I can do it myself if possible.

I know some people have already seen this, but this forum has responded exactly to what my app does. Discussion on the topic can be found here:
NEW: OPR FIRST 2013 Android App
OPR and CCMW applications

Either way, I use the OPR's to calculate a predicted score in real time. Like stated earlier, it is very accurate in terms of who wins/loses. As of scoring, the percentage varies. It would be cool to use past OPRs to predict the results. My app uses data specific to that regional and only that regional. So the longer the regional goes on, the more accurate the data is.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

What I would be interested in is a comparison between OPR for an event, and actual average points scored for each robot. This, of course, means that a very accurate log of all robots for all matches is needed. Anyone have that data? (Before we get flamed for poor scouting, we don't keep track of ALL robots in ALL matches. The majority, yes - but not all.)

In addition, it has information about the average alliance score and OPR right next to each other to compare. I know, its not the same as a robots average points, but it would be hard to get that information for every team in a regional that hasnt been played yet because no one can keep track of individual scouting data for each team at each regional. Our OPR was 42.7 ish (I dont remember the actual number) but according to our scouting data, our average scoring points were around 43-44 points.

[Hoover]

Originally Posted by stingray27

I know some people have already seen this, but this forum has responded exactly to what my app does. Discussion on the topic can be found here:
NEW: OPR FIRST 2013 Android App
OPR and CCMW applications

Either way, I use the OPR's to calculate a predicted score in real time. Like stated earlier, it is very accurate in terms of who wins/loses. As of scoring, the percentage varies. It would be cool to use past OPRs to predict the results. My app uses data specific to that regional and only that regional. So the longer the regional goes on, the more accurate the data is.

Hi stingray27,

I saw your thread last night and have already installed and used it. Brilliant!

You say you use OPR and not CCMW. Being new to this, what is CCMW and is it not preferable to OPR? Just asking, because I am fine with the OPR results.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Hoover

Hi stingray27,

I saw your thread last night and have already installed and used it. Brilliant!

You say you use OPR and not CCMW. Being new to this, what is CCMW and is it not preferable to OPR? Just asking, because I am fine with the OPR results.

CCWM is Calculated Contribution to the Winning Margin. For a given team, instead of using purely the team's score (OPR), CCWM uses the team's alliance score minus the opponent's score.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Hoover

what is CCMW and is it not preferable to OPR? Just asking, because I am fine with the OPR results.

It's CCWM. "Calculated Contribution to Winning Margin"

It's just like OPR, except instead of using alliance score as input to the computation, it uses the difference between the two alliance scores for each match.

See Ed Law's paper (linked in post#1 in this thread). There's a discussion about it there.

[IKE]

So, I did a quick scrape through our data from Grand Blanc. I found a handful off questionable values, but most of them were realtively low impact to averages.

The highest delta between OPR and what our scouts provided was 13 points. This particualr instance was 13 points favorable to that particular team. This team also had a few of the values I question as it appears that they did not score outside of auton in their final 2 matches (which I find hard to believe, but will verify later). This was one of the top scoring teams at the event.

The highest "unfavorable" OPR reading was 8.8 off from the scouts average. This particualr team also had some questionable data for one of their matches. Adjusting the values for that match to what I beleive were more accurrate (second scouting source), this delta went down to 5, and a different team became the most disadvantaged at 7.0. The team with this delta was a lower scoring team that OPR seems to be especially harsh on when comparing their 9.5 average to their 2.3 OPR.

To get average error, I took the absolute value of the error and found the average to be 3.5 pts, and the median error to be 2.9 pts.

Average OPR for the event was 24.8 and median OPR was 18.8. Thus the average error and median error for this event seems to be coming in at 15-16%.