|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: New Scouting Database from Team 2834
The scouting database has been updated to include Week 4 results.
The top 10 true world ranking is as follows. Code:
Team Wins Losses Ties Played QS RS MP Avg Score OPR OPR Rank Avg WM CCWM CCWM Rank Record 1114 32 1 0 33 64 37.55 150 33.53 72.40 1 20.88 59.30 1 (32-1-0) 111 31 2 0 33 62 39.64 135 32.62 63.83 2 18.98 47.91 7 (31-2-0) 148 14 1 0 15 28 19.73 135 28.24 59.68 3 21.33 53.66 4 (14-1-0) 2054 32 5 0 37 64 27.89 135 27.10 57.15 4 16.95 56.67 2 (32-5-0) 33 17 1 0 18 34 21.94 114 24.31 56.22 5 16.80 54.01 3 (17-1-0) 987 14 4 0 18 28 37.11 135 24.17 52.28 6 8.85 15.55 124 (14-4-0) 217 32 5 0 37 64 27.65 122 27.75 51.70 7 17.84 45.36 9 (32-5-0) 2363 15 1 0 16 30 26.81 116 25.19 51.07 8 14.65 41.86 13 (15-1-0) 2056 29 6 0 35 58 27.06 150 29.26 50.51 9 18.95 44.76 10 (29-6-0) 1678 15 1 0 16 30 15.81 99 21.19 49.45 10 15.63 44.26 11 (15-1-0) |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Regional Rank: New Scouting Database from Team 2834
Ed,
Your data is also useful in determining the strongest regional. Using the average OPR of the top 24 robots a strength rating is created as follows: 1 Midwest, 28.02 2 Oregon, 26.98 3 WashingtonDC, 26.12 4 LosAngeles, 25.09, 17.41, Average 5 AnnArbor, 23.28, 4.76, Std Dev 6 KansasCity, 22.58, 31.71, +3 Std Dev 7 WestMichigan, 21.40, 3.12, -3 Std Dev 8 FingerLakes, 20.5 9 NewJersey, 20.48 10 Wisconsin, 20.15 11 SanDiego, 20.07 12 BAE, 19.9 13 Chesapeake 19.05 14 Niles 19.00 15 Pittsburgh 18.16 16 Sacramento 17.92 17 Waterloo 17.78 18 Alamo 17.8 19 Palmetto 17.73 20 LoneStar 17.19 21 Detroit 16.68 22 Boilermaker 16.61 23 Florida 16.25 24 Oklahoma 15.8 25 NewYorkCity 15.37 26 WPI 15.21 27 LongIsland 15.18 28 Bayou 14.9 29 St.Louis 13.97 30 Kettering 13.6 31 SeattleCascade 12.52 32 LakeSuperior 12.4 33 Peachtree 12.1 34 Waterford 11.86 35 SeattleOlympic 10.8 36 Israel 10.4 37 TraverseCity 9.97 38 Arizona 9.06 ![]() Last edited by Jacob Plicque : 27-03-2011 at 18:49. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: New Scouting Database from Team 2834
Jacob,
I have seen studies done with several years of data that shows the average OPR increasing as time goes on so I would be careful in saying one regional/district is stronger than another if they are not in the same week. Take our team as an example. Our week 1 event OPR was 5.9 because the robot was not working properly. Our week 2 event OPR was 32.5 because the robot was working and we also got the minibot to work half way through the event. For teams that do not have a practice robot to practice after ship date, their OPR usually improves as drivers get more experience. There can be many other reasons teams improve their OPR from one event to the next. Most teams plateau out after their 3rd event. Of course some teams' OPR goes down as their robot wore out and start to break down. One difference between powerhouse teams and teams like ours is they start their season with very high OPR probably because they have less things to "debug". For us we still have a lot of things to learn. We have a lot of "first" this year. First time using banebot motor, first time using gyro, first time using potentiometer, first time using Mecanum wheels and programming it, first time programming a field oriented drive, first time designing and building a 4 bar link arm, first time trying a magnetic encoder, first time trying a compass sensor. We are very lucky to have Team 33 helping us but when you are doing so many things for the first time, bad things are going to happen. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Regional Ranking: New Scouting Database from Team 2834
Ed,
I agree that my method does not reflect improvement from Regional to Regional. However, 69.5% of the teams only attend one regional, 28.9% of the teams attend two regionals, and 1.6% attend three or more regionals. The quick and dirty list does show dominate regionals that are ~3 times stronger than others. The use of the world rank data would probably produce a fairly accurate strength estimate. While the correlation is unproven, I'll bet the the winners of stronger regionals are dominating in the FIRST Championships. ![]() |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: New Scouting Database from Team 2834
can you email me at tomasicenogle@gmail.com with the definitions of every part? EX: RS OPR ect... can i just get a list of everything? Thank you.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: New Scouting Database from Team 2834
QS and RS definition can be found in Section 5 of the manuals.
5.3.3 Qualification Score (QS) Qualification points are awarded to each TEAM at the completion of each qualification match and are dependant on the final score: Each TEAM on the winning ALLIANCE will receive two (2) qualification points. Each TEAM on the losing ALLIANCE will receive zero (0) qualification points. In the event of a tied score, all six TEAMS will receive one (1) qualification point. The total number of qualification points earned by a TEAM throughout their qualification matches will be their qualification score. 5.3.4 Ranking Score (RS) Each TEAM on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to the unpenalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE. Each TEAM on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to their final score (with any assessed penalties). In the case of a tie, all participating TEAMS will receive a number of ranking points equal to their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties). The total number of ranking points earned by a TEAM throughout their qualification matches, divided by the number of matches played (excluding any SURROGATE matches), then truncated to two decimal places, will be their ranking score. Note: because your ranking score is derived directly from the match scores of the losing ALLIANCES in the matches you play, it is in your best interest to support your opponents and win by helping each ALLIANCE score as many points as possible. OPR stands for Offensive Power Rating. CCWM stands for Calculated Contribution to Winning Margin. The explanation can be found in this white paper. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2174 Look for the file "Team 2834 Scouting Database Presentation 2010.pdf" |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: New Scouting Database from Team 2834
Is there any reason why I can't seem to populate the CT match list correctly? I get times and team numbers and scores for Qualifications but they seem random....
edit: It also seems like the Qualification data that it is pulling is going where the elimination data normally is Last edited by shocker4256 : 31-03-2011 at 20:22. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: New Scouting Database from Team 2834
Quote:
People who knows Excel well enough are able to change the links themselves to point to the current data. Last edited by Ed Law : 31-03-2011 at 23:55. |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: New Scouting Database from Team 2834
Based on requests, I have set up the links for Connecticut, Smoky Mountain and Troy for people to use. It is in version 5b. Good luck at the competition this weekend.
Keep in mind that the OPR numbers will appear very low until more matches are completed. But you can kind of scale it up based on number of matches played. |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: New Scouting Database from Team 2834
Here is Version 5c that takes care of the low predicted OPR issue but it will require mroe matches played before it will work. Otherwise the matrix is ill conditioned and you will get an error message.
Edit: It works for all 3 locations now. Last edited by Ed Law : 02-04-2011 at 10:08. |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: paper: New Scouting Database from Team 2834
Week 5 results are out. It is in version 5e.
Caution: There are some discrepancies that has not been resolved in the data from usfirst.org website. Silicon Valley finals match score not posted North Star finals match results incomplete Troy match 78 results not included in QS numbers When resolved, they will be updated in future posting. I will be busy at Michigan State Championship and will not be able to setup links for other regionals for Week 6. I will post results of Week 6 after this weekend. |
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: paper: New Scouting Database from Team 2834
Oddly enough they are. Match 2 was actually a 0 to 0 win for the Blue Alliance. Blue ended with a score of 0 after penalties, but Red had a DQ so they lost, forcing a third and deciding match.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| paper: 2007 Championship Event Scouting Database, presented by Team 1114 | Karthik | Extra Discussion | 18 | 10-04-2007 17:02 |
| paper: Waterloo Regional Scouting Database | astephen68 | Extra Discussion | 3 | 04-03-2007 19:34 |
| paper: Scoring for scouting database | wheeler | Extra Discussion | 1 | 27-01-2007 15:56 |
| paper: 2006 Excel Scouting database | Greg Needel | Scouting | 11 | 20-04-2006 21:41 |
| White Paper Discuss: Scouting database | Marjory Frosty | Extra Discussion | 0 | 08-01-2006 19:03 |