How do the 2014 Regionals and Districts stack up?

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by Nemo

After thinking about this a bit more, I modified my methods again. In baseball we have Wins Above Replacement (WAR), and in FRC we have Minimum Competitive Concept (MCC). They are similar concepts. I subtracted a baseline amount from each team's score in an attempt to represent the value a team adds above a bare level.

Defining "replacement level" is somewhat arbitrary, but I defined it as attending one event, having a 5-7 record, getting picked late or not being selected, going down in the quarterfinals or not playing in elims, having an OPR of 10 (about 10% of the season's max OPR), and not winning awards. That amounts to about 15 points on the scale. Teams with negative performance index defaulted to 0. About 40% of teams competing in 2013 had an index of 15 or less before this adjustment. The idea of this adjustment is to try to quantify the "value" that teams bring above and beyond the most basic level of competitive achievement. I think that produced slightly better numbers for gauging how exciting and competitive elimination rounds will be at a particular event.

So, if I'm to understand this correctly, you're using/developing a statistic called MCC, which you're intending to make similar to WAR? This sounds like a great idea (IMHO), and should certainly be very interesting. What are you trying to have the metric include? Just on-field performance? General team greatness (basically adding the Chairmans/spirit/GP dimension)?

I like your definition of the "replacement level..." it seems to work pretty well. Someone on the cusp of making elims makes a lot of sense being called "replacement level" since that's the level with which you'd replace a team on your alliance with a backup robot. If I understand correctly, you then found that to be equal to about 15pts in this statistic you've developed (are you calling it Performance Index, currently?). 40% of FRC teams have a Performance Index of less than 15pts. You then subtracted 15pts from everyone's Performance Index to determine their Performance Index Above Replacement. I assume you allowed teams to have a negative Performance Index Above Replacement (but with a min of -15, since you capped it to 0 on the Performance Index), correct?

I really love this idea, and depending on how you answer the questions in my first paragraph, I'd like to propose some different names... MCC describes what the "replacement-level team" is, but doesn't really describe what the stat does. The idea of wins above the replacement level is a very useful and easy-to-scale, so it seems like it'd make sense for it to be named something like WAR.

I also like the idea of separate stats for on-field performance and for the Chairmans/spirit/GP dimension, so here's my suggestion: perhaps rWAR (robot Wins Above Replacement) which would then be scaled so that it corresponds to # of qualifying wins at a 12-match event. An elite-level team would probably have an rWAR of about 6 (6 wins above replacement level, which you gave as about 5-7)... fortunately for those of us who are into baseball stats, that scales somewhat similarly to baseball WAR. :-) If we have a separate stat for the Chairmans/spirit/GP dimension, perhaps it could be called cWAR (for "character" or "chairman's"). An all-around stat could be some statistical combination of both... probably called aWAR for "aggregate Wins Above Replacement."

Now I'm even more interested in seeing this spreadsheet... seeing how you go about calculating various things and trying (or not trying) to compensate for different elements! :-)

[Nemo]

I've edited the first post with a link to the spreadsheet. Let me know if the link doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

So, if I'm to understand this correctly, you're using/developing a statistic called MCC, which you're intending to make similar to WAR?

As far as I know, thee MCC idea originated in this thread, started Ike, formerly of Team 33. I don't think of MCC as a statistic; the threads talk about the minimum requirements for a robot to be competitive on Saturday afternoon. But I do think that type of thinking could lead to some sort of "replacement level" definition for FRC that could be used in a stat similar to WAR.

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

What are you trying to have the metric include? Just on-field performance? General team greatness (basically adding the Chairmans/spirit/GP dimension)?

I guess the basic idea is to predict which teams will be generally good in 2014, especially in terms of on-field performance. Awards presumably have some predictive ability; I'm assuming that based on the fact that Zondag and the others on the district points system team did some regression analysis to put their system through the paces.

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

If I understand correctly, you then found that to be equal to about 15pts in this statistic you've developed (are you calling it Performance Index, currently?). 40% of FRC teams have a Performance Index of less than 15pts. You then subtracted 15pts from everyone's Performance Index to determine their Performance Index Above Replacement. I assume you allowed teams to have a negative Performance Index Above Replacement (but with a min of -15, since you capped it to 0 on the Performance Index), correct?

I didn't give out any negative values for performance index, and I did give it a minimum of zero after subtracting. Mainly I think the point values at those levels are mostly noise, and I also wasn't in the mood to assign a negative contribution to any teams.