OPR after Week Two Events

[marccenter]

Ed,

At Waterford 4 of our 12 matches were played with only a two team alliance. Do you have any factor that plays into the CCWM and OPR calculation?

[Tyler Olds]

Northern Lights regional is missing, but I also have noticed that the FIRST website has not updated either.

[Siri]

Are the Auto, Climb and Teleop OPRs on the WorldRank sheet supposed to match the individual event teams have played so far? It looks like they did in last week's version, but this week, for instance, has 2056's OPR-T at 2.13. (Crazy enough on its own, but GTR-E has it at 46.)


EDIT: It looks like columns A-T got sorted after everything was calculated. 1640's columns AA-AC look to be listed with team 4557 at rank 290. 2590's are with 3755 at 409th. Is there a simple way to fix it?

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by Siri

Are the Auto, Climb and Teleop OPRs on the WorldRank sheet supposed to match the individual event teams have played so far? It looks like they did in last week's version, but this week, for instance, has 2056's OPR-T at 2.13. (Crazy enough on its own, but GTR-E has it at 46.)


EDIT: It looks like columns A-T got sorted after everything was calculated. 1640's columns AA-AC look to be listed with team 4557 at rank 290. 2590's are with 3755 at 409th. Is there a simple way to fix it?

Yes, I made a mistake. I sorted the teams by world OPR and forgot to include the other columns. I reposted the corrected file. If you don't want to download it again, all you have to do is first resort by Team number, then sort again with those extra columns included. Sorry for the inconvenience. It was very late at night after an exhausting weekend of competition.

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by marccenter

Ed,

At Waterford 4 of our 12 matches were played with only a two team alliance. Do you have any factor that plays into the CCWM and OPR calculation?

OPR and CCWM are calculated whether a team shows up on the field or not. It is not any different if a team showed up but the robot did not work at all during the match. Yes it will hurt you a little bit in OPR/CCWM but not that much as long as you do well in the other matches when you have 2 alliance partners. It will hurt the teams more in OPR/CCWM that don't have a functioning robot or even get on the field.

If a team's score is only high when there is a strong partner and it is low without a strong partner, then their OPR/CCWM will be low and rightly so.

[Ivan Malik]

Are individual event opr's supposed to match the world rank ones, even if a team has only competed once? They seem to be off by a bit, not much but a bit.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Ivan Malik

Are individual event opr's supposed to match the world rank ones, even if a team has only competed once? They seem to be off by a bit, not much but a bit.

At this point, there are 16 teams that have played in 2 events. Even if your team hasn't played in more then one event, if you've played at an event with a team that played twice, all of that teams matches are taken into account when calculating your OPR. This provides a minimal connection between events, and explains why the world rankings are slightly different then individual event rankings.

At events where no team had played twice, the OPRs should match. Those events are Central Valley, Hatboro Horsham, San Diego, Lake Superior, Northern Lights, and Oregon.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

OPR and CCWM are calculated whether a team shows up on the field or not. It is not any different if a team showed up but the robot did not work at all during the match. Yes it will hurt you a little bit in OPR/CCWM but not that much as long as you do well in the other matches when you have 2 alliance partners. It will hurt the teams more in OPR/CCWM that don't have a functioning robot or even get on the field.

If a team's score is only high when there is a strong partner and it is low without a strong partner, then their OPR/CCWM will be low and rightly so.

You can be a judge of whether it's worth the effort (I'm not sure if the information is available to do so), but teams' OPR would be slightly more accurate if DQed teams were not included in their alliance score equation. It's an additional given that's being ignored. Also, the DQed team gets an OPR for only the matches they played, which I'd consider more fair.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Basel A

You can be a judge of whether it's worth the effort (I'm not sure if the information is available to do so), but teams' OPR would be slightly more accurate if DQed teams were not included in their alliance score equation. It's an additional given that's being ignored. Also, the DQed team gets an OPR for only the matches they played, which I'd consider more fair.

If the information is available by match (which I'm not sure it is), does it inherently increase accuracy? The only DQ I've seen so is from G27. Not that DQs are common in any sense, but a robot that G27s could well have been a major contributor to the match score. (We were once red carded at an off-season when our robot went haywire at the end of a match we'd helped win.)

This scoring contribution is not true of other potential DQs, for instance the entire team no-showing or playing without clearing inspection, but it does apply for some. It could work if you had Disable information or no-show robots (vs 5.5.6 no show teams), but DQ might be a wash this year.

[ice.berg]

The reason why the data for Northern Lights is missing is because of the special match that they played between the NL winners and the Lake Superior winners. When they tried to sync the robots to the field they couldnt because of FMIS system so somehow in that process they also wiped the match data from the FRC system. Hopefully they will repost the data sometime this week.

[Chris is me]

What do you guys think of OPR this year? It seems like based on a comparison of WPI's rankings versus the actual data we took, it is better than using ranking to sort teams, but still pretty noisy. I know our team's OPR was a bit low. I bet this was due to getting a lot of matches with other good teams at the regional where the score was lower than you'd expect (robot failures, etc). The other teams are ranked at least in the right ballpark, but not in a very solid order. 1100's OPR rank of #6 in particular is criminally low.

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

What do you guys think of OPR this year? It seems like based on a comparison of WPI's rankings versus the actual data we took, it is better than using ranking to sort teams, but still pretty noisy. I know our team's OPR was a bit low. I bet this was due to getting a lot of matches with other good teams at the regional where the score was lower than you'd expect (robot failures, etc). The other teams are ranked at least in the right ballpark, but not in a very solid order. 1100's OPR rank of #6 in particular is criminally low.

The OPR is a good representation of how good a team is this year. Without this coopertition award and coopertition points and weird ranking system, every team is trying to score as much as possible. However for regionals with lots of teams and not that many matches, there is still a lot of luck of the draw and the ranking will become meaningless. In that case, the OPR will still tell the truth about a team because data does not lie, only people do.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

The OPR is a good representation of how good a team is this year. Without this coopertition award and coopertition points and weird ranking system, every team is trying to score as much as possible. However for regionals with lots of teams and not that many matches, there is still a lot of luck of the draw and the ranking will become meaningless. In that case, the OPR will still tell the truth about a team because data does not lie, only people do.

I did a little work after comparing to our actual scouting data, and it seemed while teams like ours had a reasonably accurate OPR, it's really easy for one's OPR to balloon this year, so in a regional ranking sense it's less accurate overall. Technical fouls and fouls aren't removed from the data. Teams that have a playstyle that draws fouls, or just played worse opponents, get an advantage in OPR.

At WPI, a few teams happened to have their non-functional matches paired with other good teams, and OPR doesn't really know how to separate that out. Additionally, defense is huge this year, making this game less separable than other games. So while our average contribution to a match might be close to our OPR, other teams were a ways off in one direction or the other due to scheduling oddities or hella technical fouls.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I did a little work after comparing to our actual scouting data, and it seemed while teams like ours had a reasonably accurate OPR, it's really easy for one's OPR to balloon this year, so in a regional ranking sense it's less accurate overall. Technical fouls and fouls aren't removed from the data. Teams that have a playstyle that draws fouls, or just played worse opponents, get an advantage in OPR.

(bolded for emphasis)
I don't follow your logic. Teams that score points by drawing fouls are still teams that score points, and points = offense.

[Citrus Dad]

Here's an interesting result: 294 has an OPR of 18.4 at the Central Valley. Yet it had no shooter so no auto or teleop points, and it couldn't hang. It had very strong defense (which put it very high on our #3 draft list--we picked 295, a strong defender as well instead). So something weird is happening the OPR if a team with no apparent offense is doing this well. Looks like the OPR this year is capturing defensive efforts as well.