Week--2 All regionals OPR

[Ed Law]

Bongle,

I checked my data with yours and I am glad to see that they are the same. I just want to clarify for everyone on CD who uses our data why it does not seem to match.

In my spreadsheet that is found at http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2174, I report on the OPRs for each event separately in its own tab. In column O is the overall OPR. Column AA to AD are the OPRs for hybrid, bridge, teleop and coop respectively. From what I understand, the foul points are included in the overall OPR. To calculate OPR for foul points, it would be

OPR foul = overall OPR - OPR hybrid - OPR bridge - OPR teleop

Based on my understand, you are giving 5 bridge points and 5 overall OPR points for each Coop point. Is that correct? If it is, then

Adjusted overall OPR = overall OPR + 5 X OPR coop
Adjusted bridge = OPR bridge + 5 X OPR coop

When I adjust my data this way, it matches yours based on spot checking. However I am confused with your statement "the TeleOp and OPR scores both include foul points accrued". Did you adjust the OPR TeleOp points also and add the OPR Foul Points to it? From my understanding, the cummulative TeleOp points that FIRST publish do not include the foul points in it, and I believe we are using the same numbers to calculate OPR components. I would appreciate it if you can clarify. Thanks.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

When I adjust my data this way, it matches yours based on spot checking. However I am confused with your statement "the TeleOp and OPR scores both include foul points accrued". Did you adjust the OPR TeleOp points also and add the OPR Foul Points to it? From my understanding, the cummulative TeleOp points that FIRST publish do not include the foul points in it, and I believe we are using the same numbers to calculate OPR components. I would appreciate it if you can clarify. Thanks.

You are correct about the bridge points.

TeleOp and overall OPR include fouls, because there is no easy way to separate them out. It's not by any concious addition by OPRNet. There aren't any adjustments made for fouls in OPRNet.

I have fixed my previous post again.

[dodar]

Sweet, 9th best team in the world. Sandwhiched between 118 and 148.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Bongle

Edit: Initially forgot the district events. Fixed.

Thanks for the data! But is it me, or is it still missing the Rutgers Mid-Atlantic District?

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by Bongle

You are correct about the bridge points.

TeleOp and overall OPR include fouls, because there is no easy way to separate them out. It's not by any concious addition by OPRNet. There aren't any adjustments made for fouls in OPRNet.

I have fixed my previous post again.

Based on "http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/competition-manual-and-related-documents" where FIRST describe the FMS Twitter Feed Information, they report Foul points, TeleOp points, Hybrid points and Bridge points separately. That is why I thought when they report the cummulative TeleOp points in the TP column of Standings page (e.g. http://www2.usfirst.org/2012comp/Eve...rankings.html), they are just adding up the TeleOp points from each match.

Ether, can you weigh in on this since you have the twitter data for every match?

Another reason I think this way is OPR bridge + OPR hybrid + OPR teleop does not equal to overall OPR in most cases which it should mathematically if what Bongle said is right about OPR teleop and overall OPR both includes foul points.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

Based on "http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/competition-manual-and-related-documents" where FIRST describe the FMS Twitter Feed Information, they report Foul points, TeleOp points, Hybrid points and Bridge points separately. That is why I thought when they report the cummulative TeleOp points in the TP column of Standings page (e.g. http://www2.usfirst.org/2012comp/Eve...rankings.html), they are just adding up the TeleOp points from each match.

Ether, can you weigh in on this since you have the twitter data for every match?

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...0&#post1142912

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

Based on "http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/competition-manual-and-related-documents" where FIRST describe the FMS Twitter Feed Information, they report Foul points, TeleOp points, Hybrid points and Bridge points separately. That is why I thought when they report the cummulative TeleOp points in the TP column of Standings page (e.g. http://www2.usfirst.org/2012comp/Eve...rankings.html), they are just adding up the TeleOp points from each match.

Ether, can you weigh in on this since you have the twitter data for every match?

Another reason I think this way is OPR bridge + OPR hybrid + OPR teleop does not equal to overall OPR in most cases which it should mathematically if what Bongle said is right about OPR teleop and overall OPR both includes foul points.

Ok, I looked at intermediate results in OPRNet.
To pick on 1114, because that's a theme for the week:
Total alliance points: 411 (summing up their alliance scores in every match, which would clearly include fouls)
TP: 191
BP: 60
HP: 170
Total alliance points from rankings page: 411

So the rankings page appears to be reporting TP as hoops + fouls, not just hoops. Unless 1114's opponents took no penalties all weekend, which is probably a bit unlikely.

Another comparo for 2056:
Sum of alliance scores: 502
BP: 40
HP: 178
TP: 284
BP + HP + TP: 502

[Ed Law]

Thanks Bongle for looking into it. That's what Joe Ross was telling me also.

In terms of assigning 5 bridge points for each coop point, one can argue that it is harder to balance on the coop bridge when your partner is more than 50 feet away and therefore deserves more points. The opposing argument is for alliance selection, teams are not looking for alliance partners who can balance on coopertition bridge so 5 points would be right.

The reason why I report hybrid, bridge, teleop and coop as is is because I use these numbers during the competition and not only afterwards. I want to know who is the strongest teams to go to the coop bridge etc.

However when I publish results from now on, in order to be consistent as a community, I will report the adjusted overall OPR and adjusted bridge score in additional columns in Excel the same way that Bongle advocated. I agree with how it is done. If somebody using my spreadsheet wants to change the number of points to be added, they will be able to easily change the number 5to something else.

I have a question for the community. When I publish the True World Ranking from now on, which one should I use? Should I use the original or adjusted overall OPR? For those of you who have not followed the True World Ranking, it is calculated by putting in every match of every regional/district including elimination rounds and every team who has played into a giant matrix. This way all interactions between teams will be accounted for and there is no uncertainty about comparing the OPR from one event to another because one event is stronger. Lumping all the OPRs calculated from separated events together and sorting them is not the best way to do it.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

Ether, can you weigh in on this since you have the twitter data for every match?

Ed, sorry I missed out on this discussion. My internet feed was down all afternoon and evening.

Here's a link to all the match data to date. It includes Practice, Qual, and Elim data for all matches at all week1 & week2 events except Oregon and Traverse City.

There are no macros in the spreadsheet to worry about, and no formulas. Just data. You're pretty adept at Excel so you can convince yourself pretty quickly about the TeleOp hoops and Foul Points question.

Note: I found 9 entries where the scores did not add up correctly. Those may be due to late fouls that were not entered into the Twitter data stream.

[Ed Law]

Thanks Ether for the data, I will take a look at it later tonight.

I just thought of one other point to consider about which OPR to use for World Ranking.

Since I am including elimination matches, and elimination matches have no coop bridge but you can balance with 3 robots and get 40 points. Giving 10 points to balance coop bridge during qualifying rounds is a good idea. Perhaps we should not include elimination round this year since the potential number of points are different.

Just some more things to think about.

[dodar]

I still think you should consider the elims because teams play to the co-op for quals but play to the hoops in elims so it will show who is truly the best.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Siri

Thanks for the data! But is it me, or is it still missing the Rutgers Mid-Atlantic District?

Fixed once again.

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by Ether

Ed, sorry I missed out on this discussion. My internet feed was down all afternoon and evening.

Here's a link to all the match data to date. It includes Practice, Qual, and Elim data for all matches at all week1 & week2 events except Oregon and Traverse City.

There are no macros in the spreadsheet to worry about, and no formulas. Just data. You're pretty adept at Excel so you can convince yourself pretty quickly about the TeleOp hoops and Foul Points question.

Note: I found 9 entries where the scores did not add up correctly. Those may be due to late fouls that were not entered into the Twitter data stream.

Ether,

Thanks for the data. The twitter data is worse than you thought. It is not just the Oregon and Traverse City data missing. If you look at individual events, you would find that it is missing a lot of matches (e.g. FL match 105, GG match 1-8, KC match 42-61). This is not your fault but I don't think we can use this data at all. However I did confirm that the teleop points FIRST reported in standings page include the foul points.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

The twitter data is worse than you thought. It is not just the Oregon and Traverse City data missing. If you look at individual events, you would find that it is missing a lot of matches (e.g. FL match 105, GG match 1-8, KC match 42-61).

YIKES! Nice catch. I had not gotten around yet to examining it for random missing matches. Now that I have, it's even worse than that. I counted 207 missing Qual and Elim matches.

This is not your fault but I don't think we can use this data at all.

I agree: for OPR it is worthless. It still has some use for locating stats like highest scores etc but due to the missing data cannot be considered definitive.

[Ian Curtis]

Sorry to intrude again, but another most interesting plot. Plotted on the same graph is the OPR distribution for bridge, hybrid, and teleop. The way OPR is calculated (from lumped sums), it stands to reason that we should expect to see similar distribution shapes for any OPR statistic be bridge, hybrid or teleop. This is what we see.



Like one might expect, the elite tier teams dominated in Teleop. It is a little surprising to me that they do not also dominate in hybrid. Perhaps if we see some autonomous bridge jousts for balls this shape will change. In the middle of the road teams, it is clear that bridge balancing is worth more points than teleop and hybrid, although not by a terribly large margin. I also find the fact that the teleop and bridge balancing curve cross again near zero -- I wonder if this is a sign that teams with inexperienced drivers make it hard for their partners to balance, versus just being unable to score balls by themselves.

On a final note, notice all three lines are quite close. The game has a beginning, middle, and end and they are all close to equally weighted. I wonder if other FRC games that are regarded as good and fun to watch share this characteristic?