Smart team vs. Good Team

[Ginger Power]

Alright so good teams are typically smart teams, however, hear me out. Who would typically win a match, a smart team or a good team? In this scenario by a smart team I mean a team with a weaker robot but knows the game inside and out and plays their strengths well. By a good team in this scenario I am referring to a team with a more competitive robot but isn't as well versed in the rules and doesn't play the game at max efficiency.

I believe the smart team will win every time. The smart team will be able to coordinate an alliance effectively which is vital to Aerial Assist. The smart team will incorporate the best possible strategy possible during quals regardless of who they are paired with. The good team will be more dependent on having good teams with them in quals, and that comes down to luck.

So who wins, the smart team, or the good team?

[ksafin]

You can't ask a question like this. It isn't black or white or clear cut like this.

The answer to the question is entirely scenario-specific.

[Canon reeves]

My money is on the smart team, with defense, and knowing the opponents weaknesses, a smart team could get inside their head. Cause them to make simple mistakes the lead to wasted time or penalties. I know first hand the advantage of this, our robot could only catch really well and score in the low goal, we still had the 3rd highest teleoperated score, and we were dead over half the time. This was largely because of smart driving and strategy, we used strategy mats, we looked at our opponents weaknesses and we could outsmart their drivers and put them in a situation causing them to make a split second decision, one way they get a penalty, the other, they don't, but it seems more appealing to get the penalty to any driver who doesn't know the rules. We never forced any penalties, we just made it easier for other people. A driving robot can easily make it into elimns if they drive competitively and know the rules! While a good robot can preform, it is capped by their preforming ability. Just my 2.5 cents.

[Zuelu562]

In direct relation to this year's game, Aerial Assist, a "smart team" will likely have a higher percentage chance to win the game versus the chances of a "good team" assuming you interchange them in any given match. This is primarily due to the necessary cooperation to do exceedingly well; knowing each robot's strengths and how best to align them is a key this year.

I will go out on a limb and say many of more recent years, the opposite was true - a "good team" had a higher chance of winning than a "smart team" in any given match where you could interchange the two teams in question. Logomotion? If you couldn't hang well, hang out in the middle and slow down the other alliance. Your minibot (deployment system) not great? Don't bother.

In a year like Logomotion, the "good teams" carried play. A year like this one, all robots carry play. The value of each individual robot to the overall scheme isn't influenced by robot capabilities as it once was; robots are valuable commodities, whether a box-on-wheels or the FRC equivalent of an aircraft carrier.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by ksafin

You can't ask a question like this. It isn't black or white or clear cut like this.

The answer to the question is entirely scenario-specific.

By setting up this hypothetical scenario and asking who would win I am really looking for people to take the question at face value and dig deep into it. It obviously isn't clear cut. . . It's an opinion that an individual forms and defends to the best of their ability. If all questions had a black and white answer, debates would be no fun and critical thinking wouldn't be needed. I figured what better place to pose a hypothetical question about robots than Chief Delphi. It isn't supposed to be clear cut. . . I'm looking to see a debate about a topic which I'm interested.

[ksafin]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

By setting up this hypothetical scenario and asking who would win I am really looking for people to take the question at face value and dig deep into it. It obviously isn't clear cut. . . It's an opinion that an individual forms and defends to the best of their ability. If all questions had a black and white answer, debates would be no fun and critical thinking wouldn't be needed. I figured what better place to pose a hypothetical question about robots than Chief Delphi. It isn't supposed to be clear cut. . . I'm looking to see a debate about a topic which I'm interested.

I don't think you can have one.
Every bit of this question depends on the circumstance. It depends how "smart" the smart team is, how "good" the good team is, how "smart" and "good" the partners are, etc. There's too many dynamics that if you condense it down into any scenario where you can squeeze out an answer, it'd be a scenario overridden with so many hypotheticals that it'd be invalid by the point.

[cadandcookies]

Generally, a smart team. A "good team" with a "good robot" that isn't as familiar with the game is liable to rack up penalties and be out of touch with common and uncommon strategies.

That being said, as the OP points out, most "good teams" with good robots are also smart about how they approach the game and competition. This is why we know them as good teams.

Of course, this all depends on your definition of a "good team"-- if by good team, you mean competitive, then we're basically arguing if a team that is by definition good at the game is going to a team that is, again, by definition, nebulously "smart" about their approach. If, on the other, hand, by a "good team," you mean a team that focuses on the Chairman's Award, then their on-field performance is relatively random taken as a whole (I wish I had a statistic on this-- someone either back me up or disprove me here). Then, the smart team wins.

Ultimately the issue is that the terms aren't really well defined and they aren't even mutually exclusive.

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Ultimately the issue is that the terms aren't really well defined and they aren't even mutually exclusive.

Yup. We can't debate this.

But we can say that teams with robots that "do" things, such as throw the ball full court, are not necessarily going to win over teams that have a one point kiss-passing bot and a good bit of drive practice and strategy. And I sure hope there's not much debate about that.

[Jeffy]

I'm inclined to think a good team can be outsmarted, but I couldn't tell for sure.
I can assure you this though, being a smart team will make you perform better no matter what kind of robot capabilities you have.
And in this game, A LOT better.

[Alan Anderson]

I've been looking for the source of this quote, but I've given up trying to find it. Someone once said that a good robot with a bad drive team can lose, and a bad robot with a good drive team can win...but a good robot with a good drive team can dominate.

[Mr V]

Average robots playing smart can take down good or great robots who aren't playing smart. I've seen it play out that way more than once so far this season.

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by ginger power

Who would typically win a match, a smart team or a good team? In this scenario by a smart team I mean a team with a weaker robot but knows the game inside and out and plays their strengths well.

Shouldn't be too hard to figure out after 3 weeks of regionals. Look at the winners. Are they predominately teams with good robots, or "smart" teams with less capable robots?

Originally Posted by mrnoble

But we can say that teams with robots that "do" things, such as throw the ball full court, are not necessarily going to win over teams that have a one point kiss-passing bot and a good bit of drive practice and strategy. And I sure hope there's not much debate about that.

“The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.” - Damon Runyon

[Adam Freeman]

Show me a "good team" that isn't a "smart team" in FRC.

For this game, one individual robot machine can only do some to help an alliance. A really good scorer still needs someone to pass to it to get the extra points for assists. A really good passer still needs someone to score for it.

With that being said, I think your hypothetical question should be a "smart team" v. a "good robot".

In that case, the "smart team" will win everytime. They will put their alliance partners in a position to help best enhance each teams strengths, while reducing their opportunities to expose their weaknesses.

A team with a good robot, that isn't very smart will play to their own strengths, without thinking about what their alliance partners strengths/weaknesses.

By the time Championships come around, every good machine (Top25?) will be able to execute a score/pass/truss action as well as the next one. This game will really come down to which alliance best utilizes it's entire alliances strengths and capitalizes on the other teams weaknesses.

Execution is always important, but getting the ENTIRE alliance to execute perfectly, with one purpose, will be what it takes to win this year.

[who716]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

Alright so good teams are typically smart teams, however, hear me out. Who would typically win a match, a smart team or a good team? In this scenario by a smart team I mean a team with a weaker robot but knows the game inside and out and plays their strengths well. By a good team in this scenario I am referring to a team with a more competitive robot but isn't as well versed in the rules and doesn't play the game at max efficiency.

I believe the smart team will win every time. The smart team will be able to coordinate an alliance effectively which is vital to Aerial Assist. The smart team will incorporate the best possible strategy possible during quals regardless of who they are paired with. The good team will be more dependent on having good teams with them in quals, and that comes down to luck.

So who wins, the smart team, or the good team?

I would say a smart team would win and, i would belive we are living proof of this, we have a good robot this year it is in no way great but its good does its job, we ended WPI as the number one seed, by being efficient with our strategy, not wasting time attempting the ten point if we miss it the first time ect.

[Dominick Ferone]

I say the smart team wins. Last year and this year we didn't have the best bot, it was good did its job and held it weight. But when we made a plan our team organized the jobs for our alliance well and we ended #1 last year and #2 this year. Its more being able to rally your alliance and making sure everyones on the same page.