2014 Curie Division

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Gary Dillard

Maybe no penalties (especially no stupid ones) should be up there somewhere?

Look no further than the human player. If they are acting the fool and piling up penalties like a busnessman does airline miles write them off ASAP!

[Coach Norm]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Look no further than the human player. If they are acting the fool and piling up penalties like a busnessman does airline miles write them off ASAP!

Yes to this. Human players should definitely not be getting penalties at this point much less drive teams.

[joelg236]

Pre-scouting is started

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh....php?p=1375494

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I've made a pretty crude attempt to factor out event "quality" from OPRs. The first stab at this simply adds the event's median (or mean) OPR to the OPR for the team. Teams that go to better events get more points.

There is probably a better way to normalize OPRs across events, but this seems okay.

Median adjusted

469, 173.87
1718, 172.53
254, 165.16
118, 156.09
4522, 155.41
4334, 153.48
68, 147.97
180, 145.42
125, 144.78
359, 141.41
4362, 139.88
230, 139.83
447, 134.78
842, 132.70
3476, 130.78
4055, 129.77
1241, 129.24
2013, 126.08
177, 126.05
2451, 125.47
987, 120.14
3015, 115.58
3812, 115.58
74, 115.37
3990, 113.58
2016, 112.03
624, 111.82
573, 109.24
1323, 108.89
1595, 107.49
1629, 107.33
11, 106.22
222, 106.17
135, 104.99
1732, 103.57
75, 101.77
1714, 100.17
2619, 98.72
2928, 95.88
5172, 95.59
4819, 94.64
2468, 93.10
236, 91.92
1676, 91.58
4915, 91.04
5191, 90.55
2648, 89.38
294, 88.08
2443, 87.46
3161, 85.55
772, 85.44
1501, 85.26
2848, 84.20
2478, 82.12
3386, 80.39
1723, 73.98
3301, 73.36
3660, 73.23
3794, 72.06
2073, 70.84
3932, 70.33
3230, 70.31
3478, 69.24
1311, 68.90
418, 68.86
5024, 68.67
4125, 67.45
1902, 65.97
3562, 65.60
191, 63.47
5125, 62.99
865, 62.59
2403, 60.94
3042, 58.18
4159, 57.95
5093, 57.02
5179, 56.96
3692, 56.30
4486, 55.74
4161, 55.72
28, 55.65
5002, 55.58
2543, 52.49
5076, 51.66
4901, 49.43
1937, 44.94
4171, 44.38
540, 44.33
2080, 43.58
4935, 38.53
4969, 36.91
2169, 35.94
2227, 32.31
5326, 30.95
3843, 30.65
1287, 29.59
5297, 29.06
5036, 28.36
4977, 25.62
1884, 14.18

Mean adjusted

1718, 187.63
469, 178.86
254, 169.93
4522, 162.90
4334, 161.09
118, 161.08
68, 152.96
359, 149.26
180, 146.12
4362, 144.87
125, 143.80
842, 141.23
230, 138.84
1241, 136.33
2451, 134.26
2013, 133.70
3476, 131.36
447, 130.91
4055, 128.79
177, 128.27
987, 127.52
74, 120.36
3990, 118.12
3812, 117.91
3015, 117.03
624, 115.52
1323, 114.47
573, 114.23
1629, 114.11
1732, 112.37
1595, 109.82
135, 108.28
2016, 108.16
11, 107.80
222, 107.75
2619, 103.71
75, 103.35
1714, 102.08
5172, 101.83
4819, 99.63
2468, 98.80
2928, 98.21
4915, 97.16
2443, 95.32
236, 94.14
1676, 93.16
294, 92.62
3161, 90.32
2648, 88.40
3386, 87.02
1501, 86.61
2848, 85.87
5191, 84.14
2478, 82.70
772, 81.38
1723, 77.94
1311, 77.83
3660, 77.18
2073, 76.18
5024, 75.77
3794, 75.33
418, 73.85
3301, 73.33
3478, 72.52
5125, 71.79
3230, 71.38
3932, 71.03
4125, 71.03
3562, 70.94
865, 67.36
1902, 66.66
191, 64.91
4486, 63.57
5002, 62.86
5093, 62.01
3042, 61.77
2403, 61.52
5179, 61.50
4159, 60.46
2543, 59.50
3692, 58.21
28, 57.99
4161, 57.91
4901, 53.40
4171, 49.96
540, 49.69
2080, 47.54
1937, 46.59
5076, 45.24
4969, 42.27
4935, 42.16
2169, 41.91
3843, 37.93
5297, 36.91
5036, 34.99
1287, 34.64
2227, 34.15
5326, 32.30
4977, 28.90
1884, 19.84

I've attached a file that contains all event OPR stats.

[AlexD744]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Tactical flexibility. Never underestimate the value of forcing your opponent to think on their feet.

So much this! Changing up your strategy between or even during a match can throw in a mind game to the opponents that could swing a match.

[JB987]

"I've made a pretty crude attempt to factor out event "quality" from OPRs. The first stab at this simply adds the event's median (or mean) OPR to the OPR for the team. Teams that go to better events get more points."

Or... teams that competed at events with less defense played get more points?

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by JB987

"I've made a pretty crude attempt to factor out event "quality" from OPRs. The first stab at this simply adds the event's median (or mean) OPR to the OPR for the team. Teams that go to better events get more points."

Or... teams that competed at events with less defense played get more points?

Good catch. I only thought about the positive case.

This is correct, assuming less defense equals more points, which it doesn't always. It's hard to statistically isolate events that are defense heavy from events that don't have a lot of offensive power.

As I said this is a super crude way of doing this, and it may be rewarding points for the wrong things. I think the teams who went to DCMP events are unfairly rewarded as those events were made up of a selected pool of teams.

Anyway, all the raw data is there.

[JB987]

Thanks for crunching the numbers, Tom. Any data in correct context can serve a useful purpose...

[pabeekm]

Anyone on Curie want to join in on a scouting alliance between teams on different fields? (Details can be found here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...+championships)

We've got teams on the other 3 fields interested, but could use some representation from Curie. Thanks!

[George1902]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

The first stab at this simply adds the event's median (or mean) OPR to the OPR for the team. Teams that go to better events get more points.

If I'm reading this right, wouldn't this exacerbate the issue? You're adding the high average of a strong event to an already inflated OPR.

Rather, you'd want to measure how strong the event was and correct OPR with that. Simplest way would be to take the difference of the event's average OPR and the world average OPR, and subtract that from the team's OPR at that event. This would lower OPRs at stronger-than-average events and raise them at weaker ones.

Something like:

OPR - (Event Avg - World Avg)

[Joe Ross]

There are really two opposite factors that affect event to event OPR comparison. One is if an event does not have many teams that are able to possess the ball, everyone's OPR will be lower. This seems to be what George is interested in. The other is that at an event with a lot of good teams, there's only so many points you can score due to cycle time. A good scoring robot and two decent passers will likely score similar to 3 all around good robots. This reduces the OPR of the all around good robots at an event. This seems to be what Tom was addressing.

[cbudrecki]

Tigertrons YouTube page has videos from Mt. Olive, and I am making it my mission to get the MAR Champs matches posted by Monday. (edit at home, upload at work ) Unfortunately, we don't have video from Chestnut Hill, sorry.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

There are really two opposite factors that affect event to event OPR comparison. One is if an event does not have many teams that are able to possess the ball, everyone's OPR will be lower. This seems to be what George is interested in. The other is that at an event with a lot of good teams, there's only so many points you can score due to cycle time. A good scoring robot and two decent passers will likely score similar to 3 all around good robots. This reduces the OPR of the all around good robots at an event. This seems to be what Tom was addressing.

Among the other problems with OPR this year is the assumption that teams are trying to maximize their overall score. Many teams at times sacrificed potential truss and high goal points to maximize assist points rather than total score.

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by cbudrecki

Tigertrons YouTube page has videos from Mt. Olive, and I am making it my mission to get the MAR Champs matches posted by Monday. (edit at home, upload at work ) Unfortunately, we don't have video from Chestnut Hill, sorry.

FYI, Team 1676 has all of the full-field match videos from Mt. Olive, Clifton, and Bridgewater-Raritan posted on their YouTube Channel. They are also working on getting all of their MAR Champs footage up as well, which will hopefully all be posted by tomorrow.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by George1902

If I'm reading this right, wouldn't this exacerbate the issue? You're adding the high average of a strong event to an already inflated OPR.

Rather, you'd want to measure how strong the event was and correct OPR with that. Simplest way would be to take the difference of the event's average OPR and the world average OPR, and subtract that from the team's OPR at that event. This would lower OPRs at stronger-than-average events and raise them at weaker ones.

Something like:

OPR - (Event Avg - World Avg)

I am trying to award teams who played at harder events and had their OPR lowered because of the defense they played against. This method does exactly that and brings up teams who played at high caliber events closer to the top. It doesn't award teams who had high OPRs at their event where no one else could score as much. I'm not sure how good of a metric it is other than kind of being a 2nd order sort on who played well at "good" events.