FRC Top 25 Week 1 & .5 Polls Open. Close 3/7 8:00PM EST!

[Tyler Olds]

FRC Community!

FRC Top 25 is back in a big way and we need your help to determine who the top 25 teams of the week are for week 1 and .5!

http://www.frctop25.com/vote/

Cast your votes by 8PM EST for the top 25 teams (yes you need to submit 25) of the week.

Changes are in store for this year. We have brought in 10 experts from all over North America to cast their vote as well. We will display both votes during the FRC Top 25 and an aggregate ranking on the show!

Here's an example:


Here's the Expert Panel (well their pseudonyms):
Methodical Moose
Punky
Sir Galahad
Tom Haverford
Ogmo
2champz
Prancing Zebra
Corsetto's Tank Top
Android
Ranger

VOTE VOTE VOTE and we will see you on Tuesday @ 8:30PM EST www.twitch.tv/firstupdatesnow

[RadonH0926]

It was intresting trying to make a list of the 25 best robots from week 0.5 and 1 events. I couldn't Find too much videos on blue alliance, so I voted based on OPR. I'm gonna Predict that 179 will be number 1 overall.

[wjd13]

Will results be posted on this thread after the broadcast for those that won't be able to see the broadcast?

[Tyler Olds]

Originally Posted by wjd13

Will results be posted on this thread after the broadcast for those that won't be able to see the broadcast?

We will try to get them up on cd asap. Most likely after the youtube upload has finished.

[KrazyCarl92]

Originally Posted by RadonH0926

It was intresting trying to make a list of the 25 best robots from week 0.5 and 1 events. I couldn't Find too much videos on blue alliance, so I voted based on OPR. I'm gonna Predict that 179 will be number 1 overall.

As the number of events each week gets higher and higher, it becomes increasingly impossible to keep track of how teams across the world are performing. When FRC Top 25 started, I think the most events we would see in a single week was on the scale of 10-12. Now between week 0.5 and week 1, we had 18 events. In weeks 2 and 5 there are 24 events each. There's just no feasible way for each person to keep track of all of the teams across all competitions and assign rankings anymore.

I think there may exist a better solution by which voters list what competitions they followed and rank ONLY teams from those events 1-25. Then use some comparative analysis based on relative rankings of teams in different lists to sort it all out. Unfortunately, this has the downside of being somewhat complicated. But it would be a way to combat information bias.

And I think a lot of people probably end up using OPR as a band-aid, which while it may trend with performance, is a fairly poor indicator this year due to mutual exclusivity of points on an alliance for crossing defenses.

[Akash Rastogi]

I highly suggest 558 to anyone voting. These guys are absolutely dominant this year.

[The_ShamWOW88]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

I highly suggest 558 to anyone voting. These guys are absolutely dominant this year.

I voted and they're in the top 10.

Going to be a strong year for them definitely.

[Kevin Leonard]

I voted. In the past, hasn't filling in teams past #15 been optional? I noticed that some of the queries were required and some weren't, which was odd.

I'm looking forward to an excellent show, as always!

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by KrazyCarl92

And I think a lot of people probably end up using OPR as a band-aid, which while it may trend with performance, is a fairly poor indicator this year due to mutual exclusivity of points on an alliance for crossing defenses.

But does that make OPR a poor indicator of a team's performance - compared to actual points scored by a team - or a better indicator? From the standpoint of "how much value does team ____ add" in the context of a 3-team alliance, I think it actually makes OPR a better metric. If a team is only capable of a skill set that adds little value (when partnered with two event-average teams), then I don't think they should have a high OPR.

[KrazyCarl92]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

But does that make OPR a poor indicator of a team's performance - compared to actual points scored by a team - or a better indicator? From the standpoint of "how much value does team ____ add" in the context of a 3-team alliance, I think it actually makes OPR a better metric. If a team is only capable of a skill set that adds little value (when partnered with two event-average teams), then I don't think they should have a high OPR.

The issue lies in event-event comparisons. Because each defense can only be crossed a maximum of 2 times by an alliance, a team's OPR at any given event is influenced by the average ability of teams at the event. Let's consider 2 teams that are capable of identical performances:

Team A is at an event where the average pair of random partners can fully damage 1 defense. This means that in order to get the breach, Team A must fully damage 3 defenses.

Team B is at an event where the average pair of random partners can fully damage 3 defenses. This means that in order to get the breach, Team B must fully damage 1 defense.

Let's say they can both score low goals well. Now perhaps Team A has limited time to score low goals, but Team B may have plenty of time to pop in a few low goals. Team A will (on average) have an inflated OPR based on the level of play at their competition by 20-n*2 points over Team B's, where n is the number of additional low goals Team B has time to score in a match.

For example, this may explain in part why Team 1983 had an OPR of 45.73 at Auburn Mountainview while Team 67 had an OPR of 37.73 at Waterford. Based on my (subjective) viewing of the matches, both teams had highly capable nearly identically performing robots. Sure if I had to give a slight edge to what I saw this weekend, it would go to 1983 but I would say the difference in terms of robot capability was on the order of 2 points or less (one low goal).

Again, subjective/anecdotal information, but the lack of linearity in defense scoring REALLY makes OPR less valuable as a yardstick. It still trends with performance, but an OPR of 40 at one event is not necessarily the same as an OPR of 40 at another event. And this is more true than in past years because of the mentioned scoring mechanics for defenses.

[cjster]

I expect 5114 and/or 5150 to be in the top 10

[Crazyaimer]

I really hope 5172 makes it, their robot is great. However, as of yet there is very little footage of their robot. They were in my opinion the best robot between the lake superior and northern lights regionals.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Crazyaimer

I really hope 5172 makes it, their robot is great. However, as of yet there is very little footage of their robot. They were in my opinion the best robot between the lake superior and northern lights regionals.

100% agree with you. They were my #1, even though they had some stiff competition. Really looking forward to how they perform at Iowa and Champs.

[barn34]

Tyler, according to that picture, I'm pretty sure WAVE is violating all sorts of bumper perimeter rules with your robot this year...

[hutchMN]

According to my scouting data, I also believe 5172 was the best team followed by 2502 in Duluth (our data showed that you pretty much needed 2502 or 5172 to have any realistic shot at winning). The problem with 5172 was that there is a strategy we believed we could have shut them down with (we were only going to use it if we lost the first finals match) where 2502 is a lot harder to defend against. Disclaimer: I’m no longer part of 2502, but I’m an alumni. I also consulted with another person with immense FRC knowledge not affiliated with 2502, and they believed 2502 was the best team there. I put both teams very high on my list because they are 2 of the best 4 high goal shooters I have seen (and I watched 10 events)(BTW 5172 was #1 on my list, and I know 2502 was upset that neither of us seeded first so we couldn’t form a super alliance).
Also, 2883, and 876 had amazing robots too