OPR after Week Five Events

[JohnSchneider]

Texas and Minnesota both have a HUGE number of teams - most of which are very young. This could provide an explanation for the low scores.

[Racer26]

The other interesting thing, is how low CA is ranked by this metric. Below the FIRST-wide average, and yet CA is seen as one of the stronger regions.

I think this is an artifact of the sheer number of CA teams. Yes, they have 254, 330, 973, and more, but there are just so many of the weaker teams in CA that it skews their average.

[gabrielau23]

Sorry, I'm new to this page and thought it very interesting. I'm not sure how to open the reports? *wince

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by Racer26

The other interesting thing, is how low CA is ranked by this metric. Below the FIRST-wide average, and yet CA is seen as one of the stronger regions.

I think this is an artifact of the sheer number of CA teams. Yes, they have 254, 330, 973, and more, but there are just so many of the weaker teams in CA that it skews their average.

I think this pairs with the Texas/Minnesota thing. I'm interested to see if these regions will see an increase in strength with the move to districts (all. 3 regions are candidates) and the lengthened competition season and multiple regionals.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

I think this pairs with the Texas/Minnesota thing. I'm interested to see if these regions will see an increase in strength with the move to districts (all. 3 regions are candidates) and the lengthened competition season and multiple regionals.

I hope we see more district models happening. I want to see a district model in Canada. An awfully large (and growing!) portion of Canadian teams have been forking out huge cash to compete in 2 or 3 regionals at $4k/pop.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by gabrielau23

Sorry, I'm new to this page and thought it very interesting. I'm not sure how to open the reports? *wince

Which reports are you referring to? The XLS attachments in this thread, or Ed Law's XLSM scouting database whitepaper?

[gabrielau23]

Well, considering that I don't even know the difference right now...both? XD

[Ether]

Originally Posted by gabrielau23

Well, considering that I don't even know the difference right now...both? XD

Do you have Microsoft Excel installed?

If so, what version is it?

If not, what OS are you using?

[gabrielau23]

Oh, I know how to download a file and use Excel. I just don't know which one to download out of the many, many files on his link.

[dcarr]

Originally Posted by gabrielau23

Oh, I know how to download a file and use Excel. I just don't know which one to download out of the many, many files on his link.

You can use the filenames and dates to find the version you want...the latest at the moment, including week 5 results, is Team 2834 2013_Scouting_Database v5.0. The others are simply from past weeks and past years.

[gabrielau23]

OHHHHHHHHH. Wow. Now I feel a little stupid. wow. wow. Anyway, thanks Ether and Carr!

[CalTran]

Curious me is wondering how to actually predict the outcomes of a match using OPR? I have a bit of AP Stat background, but not much in matrix math. Is there a simple, easy method (Ie totaling OPR for the Red and Blue alliance and the higher is the winner?) Or, if I've managed to miss the thread in my filtering that describes this, could someone direct me to it?

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by CalTran

Curious me is wondering how to actually predict the outcomes of a match using OPR? I have a bit of AP Stat background, but not much in matrix math. Is there a simple, easy method (Ie totaling OPR for the Red and Blue alliance and the higher is the winner?) Or, if I've managed to miss the thread in my filtering that describes this, could someone direct me to it?

Considering that OPR is supposed to just represent the average number of points one robot will score, I assume you can just total them.

[CalTran]

That's what I figured. I just wasn't sure if it was more advanced than that.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by bduddy

Considering that OPR is supposed to just represent the average number of points one robot will score, I assume you can just total them.

Yeah, pretty much. I haven't seen any other approaches to estimating an alliances score. It isn't perfect, especially in scoring-limited games. 2011 is a great example. 3 teams that always scored 30 minibot points would only score 50 points, but OPR would have predicted 90. Similar case for combinations of teams that each score a high logo of tubes (they aren't going to get points for 3 high logos) or for combinations of teams that each use a lot of game pieces (this year, 3 teams that each typically score 40 discs probably aren't going to score 120 discs).