FRCTop25.com- Submit Your Picks for Week 1!

[BGiraud]

Originally Posted by lineskier

you see major point inflation when you include the finals.
not sure which is better for a top 25...

theres one thing thats still for sure, 217 is a monster

this is including elims...

217 91.9375
2056 86.3750
148 85.1429
1676 79.9286
16 77.3571
2016 77.0000
33 73.6111
1126 72.7500
1519 68.2143
303 68.1538
40 67.3529
176 67.0000
340 66.4667
131 66.1765
25 61.5000
1923 61.3000
1518 60.8824
175 60.2000
2137 58.2778
191 58.0833
1918 56.3333
229 54.7692
118 54.6154
3074 53.9231
156 53.9000
138 53.8889
1218 53.3333
2228 53.2000
811 52.8462
69 52.3636

Yes. There is an issue with including elims. The second alliance pick. As an example, 303 was a good enough scorer, but we (1676/2016/303) used them as a defender and they jumped from off the list to 10th on the list due to the alliance score in elims. Not really in the spirit of what you are trying to accomplish with this list.
There is value in what you are doing with this data. Thank you for sharing. I am not the kind of guy to do the full research on 25+ teams to submit a fully proper entry, but using your analysis as a starting point I may feel confident enough to submit an entry. Maybe after I see data for week 2 as well.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

Interesting a team that essentially sat still for 5 straight matches would even get a vote.

Its a great robot....when it moves.

Thank you.

Well, I only saw the eliminations at Kettering...

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by BGiraud

Yes. There is an issue with including elims. The second alliance pick. As an example, 303 was a good enough scorer, but we (1676/2016/303) used them as a defender and they jumped from off the list to 10th on the list due to the alliance score in elims. Not really in the spirit of what you are trying to accomplish with this list.

Exactly .

Its just nice to see the evidence that elim rounds should not be used when evaluating teams stats as they are not a reflection of the team but the alliance. Also once I start calculating a teams contribution in each match, the best teams will really rise to the top, more so than they already have.

Again I only view my #1 pick as a ranked pick. Simply because 217 killed it in week 1, I can comfortably say they were the best. Everyone else should be looked at as a top 25 team, but not as #6 or #9...

It will be interesting to see how teams' second regionals go. I'm personally looking out for team 40 and 33, as they are the only teams i know of going for the double autonomous, with a reasonable chance of doing it.

[Chris is me]

I think using purely statistics to rank teams is kind of defeating the whole purpose of the website and polling. Just saying...

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I think using purely statistics to rank teams is kind of defeating the whole purpose of the website and polling. Just saying...

Actually I agree...
But I am only one person, and I know people's opinions of robots will obviously rise to the top. I think numbers are a good place to start, and then based on that people should actually watch match videos and such. Unfortunately right now, most people can only vote based off the one or 2 regionals they watched in week 1. I'm simply trying to provide a basis for powerhouses that should be looked at .

[BGiraud]

Originally Posted by lineskier

Exactly .

Its just nice to see the evidence that elim rounds should not be used when evaluating teams stats as they are not a reflection of the team but the alliance. Also once I start calculating a teams contribution in each match, the best teams will really rise to the top, more so than they already have.

Again I only view my #1 pick as a ranked pick. Simply because 217 killed it in week 1, I can comfortably say they were the best. Everyone else should be looked at as a top 25 team, but not as #6 or #9...

I think there is value in the elims data to see what a good team can really do when put with other good teams, but not for the round 2 picks if that is possible. There was inflation, but also compression of the spread. That shows that the separation of the better teams might not be so much when playing at higher levels and team play is key.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by BGiraud

I think there is value in the elims data to see what a good team can really do when put with other good teams, but not for the round 2 picks if that is possible. There was inflation, but also compression of the spread. That shows that the separation of the better teams might not be so much when playing at higher levels and team play is key.

Unfortunately, for me there's no easy way to do this. As a twitter post comes in, I update a running sum for a given team. Unfortunately the alliance selection is not posted to twitter. Maybe something they could add to the twitter feed next year. I'm still trying to get autonomous added to it too.

If they ordered the teams on the twitter feed based on alliance selections, then I could do this, however that is not the case this year.

[nikeairmancurry]

Originally Posted by lineskier

It will be interesting to see how teams' second regionals go. I'm personally looking out for team 40 and 33, as they are the only teams i know of going for the double autonomous, with a reasonable chance of doing it.

There are two other teams that pulled of a double autonomous... 326 and 148... and I wouldn't be surpised to see 1114, 111, 330 or 254 having one either..

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by nikeairmancurry

There are two other teams that pulled of a double autonomous... 326 and 148... and I wouldn't be surpised to see 1114, 111, 330 or 254 having one either..

Awesome! Yeah I don't think the limit factor on a double autonomous is programming, its actually fairly simple to code it up given the right sensors.

The limiting factor is having a very well designed robot. This is why I've always shot for the design requirement "Design for autonomous"... because if it can meet the goals of autonomous, its probably simple enough for the drivers to use quite well.

It's awesome to hear that so many of top 25 teams are getting there based on focusing on building great tube hangers, rather than great minibots. Also it seems teams who chose not to pick up from the field (my team included) made a huge mistake. Is anyone aware of a top 25 team that can't pick up off the floor?

[nikeairmancurry]

Originally Posted by lineskier

Awesome! Yeah I don't think the limit factor on a double autonomous is programming, its actually fairly simple to code it up given the right sensors.

The limiting factor is having a very well designed robot. This is why I've always shot for the design requirement "Design for autonomous"... because if it can meet the goals of autonomous, its probably simple enough for the drivers to use quite well.

It's awesome to hear that so many of top 25 teams are getting there based on focusing on building great tube hangers, rather than great minibots. Also it seems teams who chose not to pick up from the field (my team included) made a huge mistake. Is anyone aware of a top 25 team that can't pick up off the floor?

From the week one regionals, if you couldn't pick up from the floor you were probably a runner and a late third pick during selection... Plus with so many tubes on the ground, I don't see you wouldn't... If I was on your team, I would consider changing to one if possible...

[V_Chip]

Originally Posted by lineskier

Awesome! Yeah I don't think the limit factor on a double autonomous is programming, its actually fairly simple to code it up given the right sensors.

The limiting factor is having a very well designed robot. This is why I've always shot for the design requirement "Design for autonomous"... because if it can meet the goals of autonomous, its probably simple enough for the drivers to use quite well.

It's awesome to hear that so many of top 25 teams are getting there based on focusing on building great tube hangers, rather than great minibots. Also it seems teams who chose not to pick up from the field (my team included) made a huge mistake. Is anyone aware of a top 25 team that can't pick up off the floor?

From what I saw, HYPER 69 was unable to pick up from the floor or preferred to obtain tubes from the feeder station.

Buzz Robotics 175 is able to pick up from the floor but prefers to be fed as well. We did not use the "flipper" at all during the competition.

We found it more effective to keep the floor clear of tubes in order to negate the opposing alliance from stealing the tubes we threw out.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by nikeairmancurry

From the week one regionals, if you couldn't pick up from the floor you were probably a runner and a late third pick during selection... Plus with so many tubes on the ground, I don't see you wouldn't... If I was on your team, I would consider changing to one if possible...

Yeah, our seasons over. Honestly one of our many poor design decisions. We live and learn. For me it was a great year to test my autonomous structure and made a lot of forward progress. I also now have a long list of requirements for my code structure.

Now its time for me to work on my ranking algorithm, its okay but could be a lot better

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Vector MycroftH

From what I saw, HYPER 69 was unable to pick up from the floor or preferred to obtain tubes from the feeder station.

Buzz Robotics 175 is able to pick up from the floor but prefers to be fed as well. We did not use the "flipper" at all during the competition.

We found it more effective to keep the floor clear of tubes in order to negate the opposing alliance from stealing the tubes we threw out.

yeah I'm thinking this was a big difference between BAE and the other competitions. Unfortunately i think the teams were weaker at BAE this year than some of the other regionals. Also the BAE strategy seemed a lot different from the other locations too.

Just for example, the best BAE teams averaged around 60, where as 217 averaged 85 points per qualifying match and 2056 almost 80. Come the championship, if you want to play with the big boys, you'll have to be able to pick up off the floor, and have autonomous too.

[nikeairmancurry]

Originally Posted by lineskier

yeah I'm thinking this was a big difference between BAE and the other competitions. Unfortunately i think the teams were weaker at BAE this year than some of the other regionals. Also the BAE strategy seemed a lot different from the other locations too.

Just for example, the best BAE teams averaged around 60, where as 217 averaged 85 points per qualifying match and 2056 almost 80. Come the championship, if you want to play with the big boys, you'll have to be able to pick up off the floor, and have autonomous too.

Your season is never over... I would continue to improve that robot and teach those on your team... Learning is what comes of a regional, plus it doesnt hurt to have something working for an offseason event... Use that robot as a great tool for the 2012 season...

[V_Chip]

The average may have differed greatly but there are different ways this data may be perceived. It could mean that the teams were "weaker" or that they were better balanced with respect to one another.

Like you stated, the strategies at the regionals varied and the presence of tubes from both alliances in a central location compared to that of playing conservatively will result in different results.

There is a thread about the highest score that refers to 148 and their partners scoring 135, but the opposing alliance with only a mere 8. Compare that to the first finals match at GSR with 117 over 82 and you see more of a balance. What were some of the finals scores at FLR,Alamo, NJ, and Kettering? I'd like to see some of the results.