paper: 2011 Team 1114 Championship Scouting Database

[Karthik]

Thread created automatically to discuss a document in CD-Media.

2011 Team 1114 Championship Scouting Database by Karthik

[Akash Rastogi]

Thanks Karthik and 1114!

[Pjohn1959]

Thanks Karthik,

This will be very handy next week!

[twetherbee]

Thanks, Karthik. Between you guys and Ed Law, you save everyone all a lot of time and produce a great reference resources.

FYI, the Las Vegas Regional "Team Standings" data on FIRST's web site is incomplete. Every team played 11 matches, but the data does not reflect it. (Team 987 was 10-1, not 9-1) The "Match Results" data is accurate, however.

[Basel A]

Thank you Karthik and Team 1114! What a great resource, and made public as well!

Originally Posted by twetherbee

FYI, the Las Vegas Regional "Team Standings" data on FIRST's web site is incomplete. Every team played 11 matches, but the data does not reflect it. (Team 987 was 10-1, not 9-1) The "Match Results" data is accurate, however.

Issue with using results because standings are not accounting a match is that it could be a mistake or a disqualification. There were plenty of both, so you'll still end up with inaccuracies.

[twetherbee]

Originally Posted by Basel A

Issue with using results because standings are not accounting a match is that it could be a mistake or a disqualification. There were plenty of both, so you'll still end up with inaccuracies.

Fair enough. Good point.

[Chris Hibner]

As always, an awesome spreadsheet.

However, I think the normalization goes in the wrong direction. It seems this year that strong regionals result in lower OPRs for teams (see MSC, for example). The reason is due to diminishing returns of the tube scoring, as well as the size of the scoring zone not allowing three excellent scoring robots to all score efficiently simultaneously. Additionally, having only two minibot poles for three robots adds to this effect.

[Cyberphil]

As always, excellent database Karthik and Simbotics! We will be sure to put this to good use!

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

As always, an awesome spreadsheet.

However, I think the normalization goes in the wrong direction. It seems this year that strong regionals result in lower OPRs for teams (see MSC, for example). The reason is due to diminishing returns of the tube scoring, as well as the size of the scoring zone not allowing three excellent scoring robots to all score efficiently simultaneously. Additionally, having only two minibot poles for three robots adds to this effect.

Chris,

I do agree that the normalization goes the wrong way when it comes to MSC. However, MSC is just a complete statistical aberration due to the overall strength of the state of Michigan, and the exclusive nature of the event. Most other regionals never really got to the point where they reached the point of diminishing returns of tube scoring in qualifying, or never consistently had three scoring robots on a qualifying alliance. What we saw more of was many weak regionals where only 1-6 teams could score effectively, as such there were considerably lower scores. (Events with elimination matches where only 7 points were scored, etc.)

[Elliot191]

Can somebody give a brief rundown of what each of the categories is and how they are calculated?

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Chris,

I do agree that the normalization goes the wrong way when it comes to MSC. However, MSC is just a complete statistical aberration due to the overall strength of the state of Michigan, and the exclusive nature of the event. Most other regionals never really got to the point where they reached the point of diminishing returns of tube scoring in qualifying, or never consistently had three scoring robots on a qualifying alliance. What we saw more of was many weak regionals where only 1-6 teams could score effectively, as such there were considerably lower scores. (Events with elimination matches where only 7 points were scored, etc.)

As always, I think I have to agree with what you say.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Karthik

I do agree that the normalization goes the wrong way when it comes to MSC. However, MSC is just a complete statistical aberration due to the overall strength of the state of Michigan, and the exclusive nature of the event. Most other regionals never really got to the point where they reached the point of diminishing returns of tube scoring in qualifying, or never consistently had three scoring robots on a qualifying alliance. ...

Thanks Karthik and 1114, for continuing to lead the FRC community toward excellence, especially in scouting and strategy.

I was at MSC, and at three other events this season -- an all time high for me. During the weeks I did not attend events, I was following webcasts. While I agree that MSC is in a class by itself (we can hope to see that level of play again in St. Louis, and at IRI), I wonder if the "point of diminishing returns" might also have been reached during some qualifying matches at Hartford and Knoxville? The fields for both of those events included many good tube scoring robots.

I really look forward to seeing some match-ups with teams that competed at those events against the most powerful Michigan teams. When ubertubes are even, the top and middle rows are filled early, HPs throw accurately and strategically, and everyone has a fast minibot, we begin to see artful defense decide matches. There were glimpses of that in the events I mentioned above. I think there will be more on Einstein.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Chris,

I do agree that the normalization goes the wrong way when it comes to MSC. However, MSC is just a complete statistical aberration due to the overall strength of the state of Michigan, and the exclusive nature of the event. Most other regionals never really got to the point where they reached the point of diminishing returns of tube scoring in qualifying, or never consistently had three scoring robots on a qualifying alliance. What we saw more of was many weak regionals where only 1-6 teams could score effectively, as such there were considerably lower scores. (Events with elimination matches where only 7 points were scored, etc.)

I think that linearly scaling the entire average contribution or OPR skews it too much at weaker regionals. Based on the two events 330 attended, Arizona was much weaker then LA, as the statistics show. Our performance was also worse at Arizona. With the current scaling, the Average Offensive Score scaling is 113.7 at Arizona and 79.5 at LA. The Arizona value is very much over inflated. I think a better scaling would be

normalized value = (team - regional average) + worldwide average

This results in an AZ offensive score of around 67, which makes sense to me. This way you're only compensating for the regional difference, and not the teams performance.

Thank you to Geoff Allan, Ben Bennett and Roberto Rotolo!

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by twetherbee

Thanks, Karthik. Between you guys and Ed Law, you save everyone all a lot of time and produce a great reference resources.

FYI, the Las Vegas Regional "Team Standings" data on FIRST's web site is incomplete. Every team played 11 matches, but the data does not reflect it. (Team 987 was 10-1, not 9-1) The "Match Results" data is accurate, however.

Trent,
It was due to a red card you folks got in the last quallification match right before lunch. I had asked about it and thought incomplete as well.

Glenn

[JB987]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Trent,
It was due to a red card you folks got in the last quallification match right before lunch. I had asked about it and thought incomplete as well.

Glenn

Glenn,
Red card was withdrawn with appeal following the match so calculations would be just slightly different as a result I think...