Top 25 ETCs after Week 3

[techvikesmom]

thanks for the update!!!!

[Dave Scheck]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get it. You have us with an EMC of 15. We put our minibot up in first place in 15 of our 16 matches, and got second in the 16th to boost our RPs. Our real minibot contribution based on that data is 29.3751 ( (30 * 15 + 20) / 16). I realize that you're just making an estimate, but when the data is so far from the actual value I don't see how it can be useful.

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by Dave Scheck

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get it. You have us with an EMC of 15. We put our minibot up in first place in 15 of our 16 matches, and got second in the 16th to boost our RPs. Our real minibot contribution based on that data is 29.3751 ( (30 * 15 + 20) / 16). I realize that you're just making an estimate, but when the data is so far from the actual value I don't see how it can be useful.

I have the exact same questions. We have similar results from Detroit for our minibot.

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by Dave Scheck

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get it.

Me either, and I'm not convinced yet that I need any new acronyms or methods. Everyone keeps obsessing about who is the best, but this is irrelevant until Einstien. At a real tournament, you don't really need a spreadsheet to tell you who is the best. This is obvious; my mom can tell you who is the best with no data at all. A thousand varied analytical methods will be able to give you the top 8 teams in order.
You do, however, need good data and methods to tell you who is 16th-24th. This is where the real value add of competitve analysis is: not for the first pick, but for the second.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Dave Scheck

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get it. You have us with an EMC of 15. We put our minibot up in first place in 15 of our 16 matches, and got second in the 16th to boost our RPs. Our real minibot contribution based on that data is 29.3751 ( (30 * 15 + 20) / 16). I realize that you're just making an estimate, but when the data is so far from the actual value I don't see how it can be useful.

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

I have the exact same questions. We have similar results from Detroit for our minibot.

Hey guys, thanks for your posts. I'm glad to know how wrong it was. The reason your EMC is low is because of point inflation. Team's that had 2 minibots go up receive a greater emc than those who only have 1 go up.

Also I found a bug in my database, so it changed the values for some of the team's a little bit (111 being one of them). Please note the top minibot score in the nation is a 19, Dave 111 has a 17 so if you look at it in that context, it means you have one of the best minibots in FIRST.

Paul, 217 you also have a minibot with a rank of 17.

for example if you look at the new list below teams like 148, 40, and 1126 although they are top 25 teams, are lacking with regards to minibots.

Also one other thing, these are all calculated based on qualifying match scores only.

Right now minibot contributions are split among all 3 alliance members, I think I'm going to actually try to figure out the minibot finish order by the scores... shouldn't be too hard

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

Me either, and I'm not convinced yet that I need any new acronyms or methods. Everyone keeps obsessing about who is the best, but this is irrelevant until Einstien. At a real tournament, you don't really need a spreadsheet to tell you who is the best. This is obvious; my mom can tell you who is the best with no data at all. A thousand varied analytical methods will be able to give you the top 8 teams in order.
You do, however, need good data and methods to tell you who is 16th-24th. This is where the real value add of competitve analysis is: not for the first pick, but for the second.

Well hindsight is 20/20 but lets look back at the selection for western Michigan where using EMC could have resulted in a very different story, and it all starts with the very first pick.

2054 picks team 67.
2054: ERC- 25 EMC-17 (top minibot and robot)
67: ERC- 20 EMC-8

it looks like an obvious and smart pick but...
in my opinion they overlook one key player which would have changed everything for them.

2767: ERC- 3 EMC-16

Had 2054 picked 2767 they would have had a monopoly over the best minibots. essentially a guaranteed 50 pts each match.

1918 at R: 16 and M:9 would have picked team 67
but finishing 3rd and 4th in the minibot race would have a very tough time beating 2054.

so i think sometimes we even overlook a potential first pick, because we want to form a powerhouse...

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by lineskier

Well hindsight is 20/20 but lets look back at the selection for western Michigan where using EMC could have resulted in a very different story....so i think sometimes we even overlook a potential first pick, because we want to form a powerhouse...

Or maybe teams actually watched matches instead of relying on final scores and fancy formulas to rank teams...

I know I may be sounding like a jerk, but as someone who works on the picking list for my team, I would be pretty upset if I worked hard and scouted every match only to be second guessed by someone who likely didn't see any matches. OPR, ETC and various metrics are nice, but there is NO SUBSTITUTE for actually watching matches and seeing how good teams are.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by lineskier

Well hindsight is 20/20 but lets look back at the selection for western Michigan where using EMC could have resulted in a very different story, and it all starts with the very first pick.

Maybe EMC isn't as good of indicator as OPR.

67 - 64.1978
2054 - 58.5124
2767 - 23.3331

Maybe 2767 didn't really have the second best minibot at the regional, but rather was the luckiest because they always had a 2nd minibot on their alliances. 16.67 is the maximum minibot score (50/3). However, to get that you need help from your alliance partners. If you had the absolute fastest minibot, but never had a 2nd minibot from your partners, you would get 10. As others said, only watching the matches lets you know the full story.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Or maybe teams actually watched matches instead of relying on final scores and fancy formulas to rank teams...

I know I may be sounding like a jerk, but as someone who works on the picking list for my team, I would be pretty upset if I worked hard and scouted every match only to be second guessed by someone who likely didn't see any matches. OPR, ETC and various metrics are nice, but there is NO SUBSTITUTE for actually watching matches and seeing how good teams are.

This is the absolute truth.
The data is a nice to know and cool to know, but it doesnt change how I go about selecting alliance partners, if I'm in the top 8.
In fact, I know who I'd pick this weekend in HI if I had the #1 pick, even before watching any matches at all.

[ttakashima]

I tend to use both as a resource when helping my team chose its partners, numbers and watching matches. While having your scouter watch matches, interview teams, go over autonomous modes, who scored which object and how many times etc. In the end it comes down to both watching matches and using those numbers, weather it be this algorithm or your own method of analyzing different points. Both could be a useful resource in picking a team to be on your alliance.

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by speedbuggy76

the Peachtree data for our robot into ERC and EMC? I'm just using the data set on the FIRST website which only contains total alliance scores.

The Twitter feed includes Bonus (minibot) and Penalty points for each alliance, the FIRST site does not. FRC-Spy also uses the Twitter feed to get this info.

Mike could you do an OPR calculation on the Minibot data for comparison since you already have the bonus data from the twitter feed. I imagine it will skew toward the extremes, and work a little better at identifying the best minibot.

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by lineskier

Well hindsight is 20/20 but lets look back at the selection for western Michigan where using EMC could have resulted in a very different story, and it all starts with the very first pick.

2054 picks team 67.
2054: ERC- 25 EMC-17 (top minibot and robot)
67: ERC- 20 EMC-8

it looks like an obvious and smart pick but...
in my opinion they overlook one key player which would have changed everything for them.

2767: ERC- 3 EMC-16

Had 2054 picked 2767 they would have had a monopoly over the best minibots. essentially a guaranteed 50 pts each match.

1918 at R: 16 and M:9 would have picked team 67
but finishing 3rd and 4th in the minibot race would have a very tough time beating 2054.

so i think sometimes we even overlook a potential first pick, because we want to form a powerhouse...

I am not sure this is proving what you want to prove, 67 has one of the most misleading ETCs for the season. If you compare them to other teams using only their data from Western Michigan then they have a EMC of 13, much closer to 2767's 16 and have a much higher 33 for ERC. I don't think there is much debate that 67 was an excellent first choice.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Or maybe teams actually watched matches instead of relying on final scores and fancy formulas to rank teams...

I know I may be sounding like a jerk, but as someone who works on the picking list for my team, I would be pretty upset if I worked hard and scouted every match only to be second guessed by someone who likely didn't see any matches. OPR, ETC and various metrics are nice, but there is NO SUBSTITUTE for actually watching matches and seeing how good teams are.

No no, once again, of course this is the case. Where I can't watch the matches, I was trying to gain insights from the #s. I am trying to make statements, to see people prove me wrong . I can never improve without being corrected. These insights are phenomenal

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

Maybe EMC isn't as good of indicator as OPR.

67 - 64.1978
2054 - 58.5124
2767 - 23.3331

Maybe 2767 didn't really have the second best minibot at the regional, but rather was the luckiest because they always had a 2nd minibot on their alliances. 16.67 is the maximum minibot score (50/3). However, to get that you need help from your alliance partners. If you had the absolute fastest minibot, but never had a 2nd minibot from your partners, you would get 10. As others said, only watching the matches lets you know the full story.

Thanks for these insights, and for the record overall I had 2767 ranked very low too. with an ETC of 19 compared to 2054s 43.

I am working on a new way of trying to calculate EMCs by actually trying to estimate which robots put minibots up, and how much they would be worth. So if you put up first and second you both get 25 points. as opposed to 16.

You are absolutely right that EMC can be very much swayed by luck. but that is why I picked 2767, I wanted to see what you guys had to say.

Maybe I would have been better off saying 2767 had a very reliably minibot, to some teams this is more valuable than the fastest.

Regarding reliability how did 2767's minibot compare to 67, 74 , 1918.

these are the 3 teams ERCs
67 - 20
2054 - 25
2767 - 3

again please disprove these claims but:
2054 and 67 had the 2 best robots or most reliable robots
1918 was very good or very reliable
74 was good and reliable

now these statements may be wrong, I'm looking for insights on them

[speedbuggy76]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

The Twitter feed includes Bonus (minibot) and Penalty points for each alliance, the FIRST site does not. FRC-Spy also uses the Twitter feed to get this info.

Yes, I understand that. I'm trying to understand how Lineskier determined a ERC and EMC value for our (2415) robot for our most recent regional - Peachtree, since it does not do a twitter feed. Just trying to see if I can re-create these calculations.

I'm working on an excel file to calculate ETC for a given regional, but my calculations are still a little different than those in this thread. I'll post a file later and maybe you guys can tell me what's different.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by speedbuggy76

Yes, I understand that. I'm trying to understand how Lineskier determined a ERC and EMC value for our (2415) robot for our most recent regional - Peachtree, since it does not do a twitter feed. Just trying to see if I can re-create these calculations.

I'm working on an excel file to calculate ETC for a given regional, but my calculations are still a little different than those in this thread. I'll post a file later and maybe you guys can tell me what's different.

Turns out it was tweeted, sorry about that:
its short name was GA

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

I am not sure this is proving what you want to prove, 67 has one of the most misleading ETCs for the season. If you compare them to other teams using only their data from Western Michigan then they have a EMC of 13, much closer to 2767's 16 and have a much higher 33 for ERC. I don't think there is much debate that 67 was an excellent first choice.

I'm not arguing that they weren't a great pick. I wanted to gain some insights. This isn't at all proving what I want it to but I'm learning.

An interesting combination is 2054 and 67.
2054's alliances put up 1050 points at MI over 12 matches
67's alliances put up 1131 over 13

2054's alliances put up 415 minibot points over 12 matches
67's alliance put up 360 points over 13

this may be a source of some problems, as expected those 50 point matches and 0 matches make a huge difference for EMC, I need to find a new way of calculating that.
Ill be looking closely at Q42, where 2054's alliance got 2nd and 4th.


2767's alliances put up 430 minibot points over 12 matches
one thing the EMC did though is deflated 2767's minibot contribution
cause their alliances put up the most minibot points at the regional.
but they had the second highest emc not the highest