Week 4 OPR - All regionals and districts

[Gaurav27]

Originally Posted by JB987

Just wondering what happened to statistics for 987?

Originally Posted by Yankeefan181

Do you have the total OPR for all weeks yet?

Please see the attached Excel spreadsheet for weeks 1 through 4 OPR. (Excluding Hawaii)
It has filters to rank by hybrid, bridge, teleop. and total. (Excluding Hawaii, even for the 'total')
It includes multiple entries for teams that have competed at more than one regional.
Feel free to change it up and add any functionalities. (i.e sort by regional, etc.)

Once again, thanks to Bongle for his work on OPR over the years to make it very easy to use and comprehend.

[1986titans]

Originally Posted by Gaurav27

Please see the attached Excel spreadsheet for weeks 1 through 4 OPR. (Excluding Hawaii)
It has filters to rank by hybrid, bridge, teleop. and total. (Excluding Hawaii, even for the 'total')
It includes multiple entries for teams that have competed at more than one regional.
Feel free to change it up and add any functionalities. (i.e sort by regional, etc.)

Once again, thanks to Bongle for his work on OPR over the years to make it very easy to use and comprehend.

Interesting things show up in the spreadsheet you posted because teams have multiple entries. It's a bit easier to see consistency (although to be in the top 100 I limited it to, you're pretty consistent already if you made it there twice). These teams show up more than once (I know this isn't perfect because there are some awesome teams out there that haven't competed twice yet):

• 67 claims the top two spots.
• 341 claims THREE spots in the top 10 (4,6,9)
• 2056 claims two spots in the top 10 (3,7)
  
• #: Rankings
• 16: 38 and 42
• 48: 28 and 43
• 148: 73 and 75
• 340: 45 and 59
• 365: 11 and 82
• 399: 44 and 57
• 469: 19 and 39
• 488: 29 and 72
• 610: 30 and 93
• 967: 66 and 95
• 1114: 14 and 22
• 1208: 87 and 88
• 1218: 40 and 41
• 1477: 25 and 63
• 1507: 12 and 17
• 1629: 24 and 79
• 1714: 53 and 70
• 1983: 5 and 16
• 1986: 13 and 36
• 2169: 27 and 56
• 2474: 10 and 46
• 2826: 52 and 74

Together, these 25 teams account for 51 spots in the top 100.

[Mr. Lim]

6 of the top 30 OPR performances of the season have been produced by Canadian teams.

All but one of those Canadian teams has qualified for STL, with only 3161 being on the outside looking in.

3161 was also the team which had a chance to snatch the #1 seed away from 1114 in their last match at Waterloo. They held the tiebreaker over 1114 with a higher Hybrid Points total.

This is the match where it all happened, and also contains a "triple double" with all 6 robots balanced...

http://youtu.be/uIdpZvfJDnE

[TheMadCADer]

Originally Posted by 1986titans

Interesting things show up in the spreadsheet you posted because teams have multiple entries. It's a bit easier to see consistency (although to be in the top 100 I limited it to, you're pretty consistent already if you made it there twice). These teams show up more than once (I know this isn't perfect because there are some awesome teams out there that haven't competed twice yet):

• 67 claims the top two spots.
• 341 claims THREE spots in the top 10 (4,6,9)
• 2056 claims two spots in the top 10 (3,7)
  
• #: Rankings
• 16: 38 and 42
• 48: 28 and 43
• 148: 73 and 75
• 340: 45 and 59
• 365: 11 and 82
• 399: 44 and 57
• 469: 19 and 39
• 488: 29 and 72
• 610: 30 and 93
• 967: 66 and 95
• 1114: 14 and 22
• 1208: 87 and 88
• 1218: 40 and 41
• 1477: 25 and 63
• 1507: 12 and 17
• 1629: 24 and 79
• 1714: 53 and 70
• 1983: 5 and 16
• 1986: 13 and 36
• 2169: 27 and 56
• 2474: 10 and 46
• 2826: 52 and 74

Together, these 25 teams account for 51 spots in the top 100.

Here is the average rank of each of those 25 teams, sorted. Take note of the important fact that these are just some numbers, and probably will not be a good predictor of all that much. Except maybe which team has a better average OPR rank out of teams with two spots in the top 100 as of Week 4, it'll help a lot for that.

Team	Rank 1	Rank 2	Rank 3	Average
67	1	2		1.5
2056	3	7		5
341	4	6	9	6.333333333
1983	5	16		10.5
1507	12	17		14.5
1114	14	22		18
1986	13	36		24.5
2474	10	46		28
469	19	39		29
48	28	43		35.5
16	38	42		40
1218	40	41		40.5
2169	27	56		41.5
1477	25	63		44
365	11	82		46.5
399	44	57		50.5
488	29	72		50.5
1629	24	79		51.5
340	45	59		52
610	30	93		61.5
1714	53	70		61.5
2826	52	74		63
148	73	75		74
967	66	95		80.5
1208	87	88		87.5

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by TheMadCADer

Here is the average rank of each of those 25 teams, sorted. Take note of the important fact that these are just some numbers, and probably will not be a good predictor of all that much. Except maybe which team has a better average OPR rank out of teams with two spots in the top 100 as of Week 4, it'll help a lot for that.

Team    Rank 1    Rank 2    Rank 3    Average
67    1    2        1.5
2056    3    7        5
341    4    6    9    6.333333333
1983    5    16        10.5
1507    12    17        14.5
1114    14    22        18
1986    13    36        24.5
2474    10    46        28
469    19    39        29
48    28    43        35.5
16    38    42        40
1218    40    41        40.5
2169    27    56        41.5
1477    25    63        44
365    11    82        46.5
399    44    57        50.5
488    29    72        50.5
1629    24    79        51.5
340    45    59        52
610    30    93        61.5
1714    53    70        61.5
2826    52    74        63
148    73    75        74
967    66    95        80.5
1208    87    88        87.5

Suits me! You just helped me make my Top 25 list - promote the teams that have won 2+ events, then 1 win + finalists, lather rinse repeat. Fill in the top performing single-competition teams, bump 2826 up because I saw how awesome they were in Wisconsin elims and I know this OPR stuff doesn't measure those performances, and finis.

[JR.]

The only issue with using the average OPR is that is disregards changes made between competitions and leads to an inacurate ranking. I think ranking the OPR's from teams leatest event is a more accurate way to rank teams via OPR because it represents what teams are doing currently not in week 1 or 2. An example of this is 365, in week 2 at chestnut hill district they had an OPR of 21.2 ranking 82nd over all while week 4 at Lenape with a new shooter 365 had an OPR of 31.1 ranking 11th or using teams latest event's OPR ranking 7th.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by JR.

The only issue with using the average OPR is that is disregards changes made between competitions and leads to an inacurate ranking. I think ranking the OPR's from teams leatest event is a more accurate way to rank teams via OPR because it represents what teams are doing currently not in week 1 or 2. An example of this is 365, in week 2 at chestnut hill district they had an OPR of 21.2 ranking 82nd over all while week 4 at Lenape with a new shooter 365 had an OPR of 31.1 ranking 11th or using teams latest event's OPR ranking 7th.

This is definitely a limitation of OPR. I am not sure how valid it is to compare OPRs across events at all, for that matter. I am a much bigger fan of CCWM (OPR+DPR), since it better reflects contributions to score DIFFERENTIAL rather than raw score itself. Many top teams leave a lot of potential points on the field once they see they have built a big lead so that they can ensure a higher success % on the Coopertition Bridge.

P.S. I really like the new shooter

[Jaxom]

Originally Posted by Jared341

This is definitely a limitation of OPR. I am not sure how valid it is to compare OPRs across events at all, for that matter. I am a much bigger fan of CCWM (OPR+DPR), since it better reflects contributions to score DIFFERENTIAL rather than raw score itself. Many top teams leave a lot of potential points on the field once they see they have built a big lead so that they can ensure a higher success % on the Coopertition Bridge.

Don't the alliance partners also influence the OPR? For example, if you're at a tournament with a large number of robots that can't score, HP & TP will be lower than they would be at a different tournament. I will admit that I don't know exactly how OPR works, but this seems to be the case, at least for our results. Our GCK OPR is much higher than what we showed in STL and I see similar, lower, OPRs for other teams that went to the same two tournaments.

I in no way want to demean any particular tournament. St. Louis is a great regional -- well-run and in a nice facility. The teams there were all fantastic; it's just that there were a higher percentge of teams that couldn't score.

[Thomas DeSilva]

Originally Posted by Jaxom

Don't the alliance partners also influence the OPR? For example, if you're at a tournament with a large number of robots that can't score, HP & TP will be lower than they would be at a different tournament.

This is partially true. Your team's OPR is the least-squares approximation of how many points your robot can score in a match, which is based both on the number of points each of your alliances scores, and who was on each alliance. This basically means that if you're always on high-scoring alliances, you'll probably have a reasonably good OPR, but your OPR will be higher if your partners have lower OPRs and vice versa. (I can give a more detailed mathematical explanation of how OPR works if you like, but I think that post has probably been made already somewhere around here.)

[MisterG]

WI regional standouts (condensed from OP data):

OPR
2481 Roboteers 33.247 4th overall 1st WI
2169 KING TeC 30.098 9th overall 2nd WI

Hybrid
2481 Roboteers 11.7361 1st overall 1st WI
2062 CORE 9.89023 9th overall 2nd WI

Tele
2169 KING TeC 22.3849 1st overall 1st WI
2826 Wave 12.5662 13th overall 2nd WI

Bridge
967 Iron Lions 11.2864 4th overall 1st WI
1732 Hilltoppers 11.2684 6th overall 2nd WI

Nice to see a high level of competition in the Miltown!

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Jared341

... I am a much bigger fan of CCWM (OPR+DPR), since it better reflects contributions to score DIFFERENTIAL rather than raw score itself...

I usually take CCWM with skepticism, unless I'm looking for a defensive team or strategic specialist. I've seen instances that strength of opponents really impacts CCWM, but doesn't have much affect on OPR (unless it's a highly defensive game). In other words, if you play a tough schedule and lose all of your matches 85-80, your CCWM will suffer because of the number of losses. The OPR will show that you can put up a lot of points and the losses aren't likely your fault.

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by Gaurav27

Please see the attached Excel spreadsheet for weeks 1 through 4 OPR. (Excluding Hawaii)
It has filters to rank by hybrid, bridge, teleop. and total. (Excluding Hawaii, even for the 'total')
It includes multiple entries for teams that have competed at more than one regional.
Feel free to change it up and add any functionalities. (i.e sort by regional, etc.)

Once again, thanks to Bongle for his work on OPR over the years to make it very easy to use and comprehend.

The data you posted on total OPR are wrong. For teams that have played more than one event, you sometimes add up hybrid OPR, tele OPR and modified bridge OPR from different events together. That is why team 2046 numbers are quite a bit off and other teams are off too.

There is quite a bit of data pubilshed on CD already and they match each other perfectly. Everybody have access and choose the one that is more convenient for them to use. I like how you format your data, but please verify it before you publish so people are not confused.