paper: FMS Scouting Explained

[karomata]

Thread created automatically to discuss a document in CD-Media.

FMS Scouting Explained by karomata

[SkittlesCharge]

Very interesting. Our team uses a 6-person scouting system that we have been developing since fall 2012, but we've had problems both years with measuring effective defense. So far the best idea we've had is to count how much teams push others, combined with a text box so scouters can add more detail about what the team does for defense. We currently do not use OPR or the like at all in our scouting process, but it seems like the idea of DAR and ADR may be useful as a supplement to what we currently do for defense. Thanks for the great paper!

[JohnFogarty]

Originally Posted by SkittlesCharge

Very interesting. Our team uses a 6-person scouting system that we have been developing since fall 2012, but we've had problems both years with measuring effective defense. So far the best idea we've had is to count how much teams push others, combined with a text box so scouters can add more detail about what the team does for defense. We currently do not use OPR or the like at all in our scouting process, but it seems like the idea of DAR and ADR may be useful as a supplement to what we currently do for defense. Thanks for the great paper!

Teams like 233 and 180 have defensive maneuver ranking points. So in a separate column if they see you performing a smart/good defensive maneuver you get a point. Then at the end those points are totaled and can usually give a good idea of your strong defensive teams.

[Coach Norm]

Are you sharing the calculator?

Very interesting approach to scouting and evaluation.

[karomata]

Yes I will post the 57th Generation Calculator this afternoon as a whitepaper. I just need to create a blank one so that others can use it as well as upload one that is filled in so that users can see the data.
Stay tuned!
Thanks,
Mo

[tr6scott]

When you post the calculator, as a test, can you put the process the FMS data for MSC last week? It would be interesting to see the accuracy based on a very competitive and saturated field.

[msto]

I happen to have pulled some recent @frcfms twitter data.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?...&usp=sha ring

[Ether]

OPR: This is typically just the average match score from all of one team’s matches. For FMS Scouting, 4 of the 6 values will be Blue Auto, Red Auto, Blue TeleOp, and Red TeleOp scores. When averaging all of these values based on every time a specific team appears on the field, it would produce the traditional idea of OPR. With this new form of OPR, the traditional OPR must be divided by 3 to show that team’s specific contribution.

I've tried reading this several times, and it sounds like you're saying that OPR as commonly used here on CD ("traditional") is just a simple average, and that your new form of OPR is derived from that simply by dividing the "traditional" OPR by 3.

That's not really what you intended, is it?

[karomata]

Originally Posted by Ether

I've tried reading this several times, and it sounds like you're saying that OPR as commonly used here on CD ("traditional") is just a simple average, and that your new form of OPR is derived from that simply by dividing the "traditional" OPR by 3.

That's not really what you intended, is it?

You are correct. That is not the thought I was trying to convey. After doing some research, I found that most OPR-like measurements used throughout the sports community (like basketball) literally are just the average score. However due to the nature or FRC scores being unreliable because of differing alliance partners and competitors, the community has developed a more developed and complex yet more accurate way to calculate OPRs. The cause for this description within the document was to simplify the statement and not bring in too much additional and unessential information. I intended this document to be used by both strategically experienced individuals as well as individuals who are new to strategy and scouting.

I apologize for the confusion within that statement.