Rookie Teams in Elims

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Eric,
WildStang makes no decision based on team number. Our statisticians look at performance on the field (not win/loss), consistent behavior, robot functions all the time, etc. If you look back at our history we have often won regionals with one or even two rookies at our side. Some of those teams have gone on to be real powerhouse teams like 1625 and 1816 to name just a few. In 2009 we and 67 picked a team that was 66th in the standings because our scouters believed they had what our alliance needed and met the criteria above. Happily they were right and 971 performed admirably. (Thank you again!)

[Chris Vivo]

It has been my experience that the teams at the LA regional pick alliance partners based on performance. We were picked for direct eliminations our rookie year as was at least one other rookie team. I know that when we do our scouting, we do not worry about whether a team is a rookie or not, all we worry about is on field performance and what we find out when we visit them in the pits. This year, it just turned out that non-rookie teams got selected over rookie teams. We are a veteran team, but we did not get all of the bugs worked out until the end of the day on Friday, so I knew we had little chance of being selected, even though we did well Saturday morning.

[Hawiian Cadder]

When considering robots to pick during eliminations this year, I will be looking not only at the robots scores, but also how reliable I think they will be through eliminations. This year I would probably choose a team that has fallen off the bridge several times without breaking over a team that has never fallen off as long as they are relatively equivalent in other ways. A robot that will stop working after a tip is not one that I want to be working with in Eliminations. Rookie teams IMO either build robots that are far too fragile, or incredibly durable, a rookie with a fragile robot would not be a team that I would pick.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

Likewise, we had 7 rookie teams in our top 24. We also had very little difference between the 18th and 35th best robots. There were only two robots in the finals that were lower then 35th in our scouting, and only one higher then 18th that was not selected. Overall I don't think the alliance selection was that bad, compared to previous years.

This was very, VERY true at LA, and probably why I disagreed with our scout, Marc S, on them being on our list.

We probably had about 45 teams on our list friday night, with 15-45 all being on the "watch list", as it was just too hard to tell from the statistics.

[kaliken]

I am agreeing with the sentiments of Joe and Adam. Our scouts had a good idea on the first 10-15 teams on Friday night. Of those top 10-15 one was a rookie. Afterward to start figuring out the next set of teams we needed to do a lot of searching to find what teams would work best with our robot/alliance formation we wanted. We had a bunch of teams that fell into this group. Finding the right one that fits with our robot, strategy is a tough task for any team.

I will admit our scouting while leaps and bounds better than what it was in years past, has a long way to go. We collected a lot of great data and performance numbers. Putting that data to great use is our next step.

Regardless we make our picks based upon on field performance regardless of ranking (this year with better data) and based upon how the team rounds out our alliance.

[robochick1319]

I think one obstacle in seeing rookies in the elimination rounds is the fact that this is a very difficult year to be a rookie. In past years, even rookies who built what were essentially running bases (a kit base with kit wheels) could put up some serious defense.

In 2008, for example, as long as a robot was running, it could rack up points for making it around the track. But this competition makes defense difficult with the many possibilities for serious penalties. Unless rookies are especially good, they don't always have a way of getting on the ramp or shooting well.

There will always be good rookie teams in the elimination rounds, but rookies should remember that the first year is a building year. Many veteran teams have veteran knowledge and experience to make better robots and better strategy. Rookies shouldn't get discouraged by this but rather strive to build great programs. And like others have said, it isn't about the number but the performance.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by seg9585

Actually, that shouldn't really factor in. Who can assume a team will be effective in elim matches when they haven't been able to score in qual matches? If a team's bot isn't effective, first regional or not, why should they be ranked higher because of their "potential"?

Everyone has code or mechanical issues in their first regional -- and most teams only go to one regional (especially rookies) so I don't see any correlation.

You don't necessarily "assume', but you might hope. I could give you numerous examples of robots that finally got the bugs out late, and then won the whole thing (with their alliances help of course). I can think of 2/4 division champion alliances last year that had such a partner.

[seg9585]

Originally Posted by IKE

You don't necessarily "assume', but you might hope. I could give you numerous examples of robots that finally got the bugs out late, and then won the whole thing (with their alliances help of course). I can think of 2/4 division champion alliances last year that had such a partner.

Sure you can hope -- but as many of the posts in this thread indicate, much of the scouting considerations take place on Friday night, and at that point some teams have only played half of their matches and don't have their bugs worked out until Saturday. Based on this logic, the analysis from Friday night would remove those "buggy" teams from the running even if they had potential.

In San Diego, I had our scouts editing picks in real time during the final day to account for performance of the robots, because it doesn't really matter how good/bad a team does in its first few matches, but how well the bot is performed in the last few in prep for the elims. Case in point -- we saw Team 702 have some field connection issues beyond their control in SD (lowering their seed ranking significantly), but after watching them in the second day decided to pick them for our alliance based on their latest performance.
Conversely, in Los Angeles it was my team having all the bad communication issues the first day, and it wasn't until Saturday that we managed to get everything working well. Some other teams I scouted performed great in their first few rounds, then had a mechanical failure or flipped and had to remove a key actuator. That's just the way these things go, so it's hard to tell.

Nevertheless, it's interesting to see teams in this thread post that "7 of the top 24 in our list was a rookie", yet not a single rookie was chosen by anybody.

[JesseK]

We had the (as it turns out) VCU Rookie All-Star team on our very short list, since it was a box on wheels with a very low ballasted c.g., good bridge lowerer, 4 CIMs on a moderately-geared drive train, and decent drivers. They would have pushed around the multitude of fender bots, and I could have helped guide them through overall strategy since they would have been defending right in front of us. Yet as 3rd seed we wound up picking a robot with a variable-consistency mid-goal autonomous that was (amazingly) still available.

So I agree with Adam -- it had everything to do with robot performance vs. our needs rather than the fact they were rookies.

[chmconkling]

Originally Posted by JesseK

We had the (as it turns out) VCU Rookie All-Star team on our very short list, since it was a box on wheels with a very low ballasted c.g., good bridge lowerer, 4 CIMs on a moderately-geared drive train, and decent drivers. They would have pushed around the multitude of fender bots, and I could have helped guide them through overall strategy since they would have been defending right in front of us. Yet as 3rd seed we wound up picking a robot with a variable-consistency mid-goal autonomous that was (amazingly) still available.

So I agree with Adam -- it had everything to do with robot performance vs. our needs rather than the fact they were rookies.

Hey there's always St. Louis!!

[BrendanB]

Last year we were the first pick by the number 5 alliance captain and another rookie was the captain of the 8th alliance.

There sometimes is a bias against a team number but its not deliberate. Some teams who find themselves captains of an alliance with no scouting data will lean towards lower numbers/winners from last year if available because we all have that assumption that the longer a team has been around the better they will be which many times isn't true because we all have good and bad years.

Perform at your best and the teams who scout will notice you!

[Roberta]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

Having been on the other end of being picked, I too questioned whether there was a bias against "young" teams.

Now that we have veteran experience, I can safely state that there is no such bias.

Experienced teams pick their alliance partners based on their scouting data, and how well a given robot will perform within that team's strategy for winning. The picking team wants to maximize their chances of winning, so they pick the "best" team available. The issue is with the definition of "Best".

For 1676 at Rutgers, "Best" meant a nimble defensive bot with smart drivers that knew how to avoid fouls. They also needed to be able to balance well, again driver skill. Our pick of 1370 had these qualities. Check their rank to see if they were in the top 24 or not...

So if a rookie team fit the criteria, it would be picked, If not, it wouldn't. Simple as that.

(By the way: Having your team lobby us to get picked won't work. We use numbers, not friendships.)

We are ranked 18. We thank teams 1676 and 56 for giving us that shot to show what we have. It gave our team a boost and we've been soaring ever since! See you in Philly!!

[Austin2046]

I've wondered about this too, esspecially at champs. I remember in 2007 (our rookie year) our team was 5-2-0 (one of those losses being against 1114) on Curie and I believe we were ranked 11th. Thinking back, I've wondered if we weren't picked because our robot wasnt very attractive... despite being rather effective... or because we were a rookie team... despite having a reliable autonomous... or maybe we didnt fit in with the alliance captain's strategies... or maybe some other reason.

Generally speaking, when i'm looking for alliance partners I usually want to pick robots that can fit in to my predetermined strategies. Usually the first pick is a highly effective scoring robot, which can sometimes be a rookie team... i know at Seattle Cascade this year we were thinking alot about picking 3968 because despite being a rookie they were one of the best scorers on the field. Generally though the best offensive robots are not rookie teams. So then in a second pick the general role is often a defensive robot. Unfortunately most rookie teams don't spend much time thinking about a drive base for defense. I know our rookie year, we had 2 traction wheels, driven by 2 cims, and two omni wheels... it took hardly any effort to push us ...

Anyway, i think while there may be a little bias against rookie teams, the smart teams easily look past that, because they're simply asking themselves, "how do i win? and who will help us most to do that?" If I feel a rookie team best fills one of those roles and would work well with us, I don't hesitate to pick them.

[Clark Pappas]

Originally Posted by Hawiian Cadder

When considering robots to pick during eliminations this year, I will be looking not only at the robots scores, but also how reliable I think they will be through eliminations. This year I would probably choose a team that has fallen off the bridge several times without breaking over a team that has never fallen off as long as they are relatively equivalent in other ways. A robot that will stop working after a tip is not one that I want to be working with in Eliminations. Rookie teams IMO either build robots that are far too fragile, or incredibly durable, a rookie with a fragile robot would not be a team that I would pick.

Well, if nothing else, we build an unbreakable frame. Twice we tipped on the bridge (That I can recall; once on coo-op with 399 when we got shifted sideways, and once when we over drove with our top heave frame) We still didn't get picked, but this was because we didn't perform well during eliminations with issues ranging from shifting the coach role too much and bad communication, to an unlucky match schedule, to the two alliance having constant breakdowns on or around the bridges. Although I would have liked to think we could have been a decent bridge pick (It's the only thing we really did during the match anyway), we never really got many opportunities to prove it. What we ended up learning at the end of the regional was that we couldn't rely on others to handle balance or coopertition for us, and that we needed to try it ourselves to prove ourselves pickworthy.

[JohnSchneider]

From what I saw in Dallas West, the bias against rookies wasn't intentional but there.

Dallas West had some very lackluster rookies (A lot of straight kitbots). And for a regional with 39 teams, where less than half of teams have shooters, and less than a third can pull down the bridge consistently, picking seemed rather shallow.

Many of the Veteran teams sort of grazed over the rookies, as if the pick didn't really matter, because the field was so even.

Due to this we got a gem in 4206 - a rookie who could lower and go over the bridge, but who also had an intake, which we were attempting to use for a 4 ball autonomous. And they made it all the way back around the serpentine.

Proper Scouting is needed even when the field looks even. Drive train considerations for triples, or intake considerations for 4 ball auto, can make all the difference in the world.