Understaffed scouting

[Sam_Mills]

Originally Posted by TogetherSword8

What we have done in past years is a lot of gut feelings. When watching a match, what you see, whether in the stands or in queue van make a big difference in who you would choose. Trust your gut, and hope it the 10%of the time it is wrong isn't then.

I would highly recommend any method of scouting that is not this. Championships are lost and won on scouting, and quantitative data is extremely important. (4334 for example would not have been a "gut" pick in 2012, but its a choice that got The Eh Team a division win)

That being said, I support the group scouting method where you work with other teams. Its a little harder to guarantee quality data, but its far superior to no data at all.

[artK]

Inter-team scouting is a good way of doing it, if both teams arrange it beforehand. (My one caution would be to have people from the other team scout your robot to reduce bias).

If you have <=6 people: Have two of them scout each alliance as a whole (swap them in and out as need), and someone compile the data between matches. Then have the remainder scout individual robots determined at the start of the match for specific qualities.

In the early matches, pick teams that are likely to be captains or first picks so you can sort out the top. As matches progress, start going with teams who could make second picks, but still check the top teams.

Create a sketch of a list at lunch, see if you can compare teams close to each other in close matches (if team A, B, and C are all next to each other in the list and all play in four matches, have one guy watch them during their respective matches, then do a sub sort).

A number of teams already do the above, in addition to the 6+data compiler scouting teams. The only thing if you do this is that the 2-5 people should be the same 2-5 people all day, not 2-5 who switch off with pit crew*. Like designing robots, it's better to have a few experienced scouts than a lot of okay scouts. If you have the same few scouts running the team the whole season, you will all get better at it by the time champs rolls around.

*If pit crew has input about how certain teams work with your team or suspect failure points in other machines, take it into consideration.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Sam_Mills

I would highly recommend any method of scouting that is not this. Championships are lost and won on scouting, and quantitative data is extremely important. (4334 for example would not have been a "gut" pick in 2012, but its a choice that got The Eh Team a division win)

What quantitative data would lead 1114/2056 to pick 4334? I suspect they were picked because they were very thin (to allow for easier triple balance), well driven and dependable. At least in my opinion, those are more qualitative measures opposed to quantitive. I'm not saying quantititative data isn't important, but how qualitative data is also necessary.

[Sam_Mills]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

What quantitative data would lead 1114/2056 to pick 4334? I suspect they were picked because they were very thin (to allow for easier triple balance), well driven and dependable. At least in my opinion, those are more qualitative measures opposed to quantitive. I'm not saying quantititative data isn't important, but how qualitative data is also necessary.

Qualitative scouting is undoubtedly important, as is pit scouting, but especially at larger events where there are close decisions to be made, numbers are going to be the best answer.

Regarding the 1114/2056/4334 alliance (warning: *some* blind conjecture ahead) yes, they were well driven, dependable and thin, but there are elements to consider that can't be answered without numbers. 1114 and 2056 would be taking a gamble by having only 2 robots that could shoot when facing alliances of 3 if they didn't do their homework. With good scouting data, you can look at how much higher robots scored compared to their averages when they had 4334 feeding them. If shooters score an average of 2 more cycles when they have 4334, then it would be worth choosing 4334 over any robot that scores an average of 2 cycles or fewer. By self scouting, they can also put together hypothetical alliances and estimate not only their expected match score, but also the standard deviation of scores of different alliances (high standard deviation = higher risk/higher score ceiling). Lacking this information means you can't make decisions about things like your ceiling vs your average, or what your opponents are likely to be scoring. This is a very condensed version, but there is a lot more that can be gleaned from good scouting data than what I said here.

I have never won a world championship though, so if anything I put up is wrong and can be corrected by someone who has, I welcome it.

[Siri]

I think there's a lot of conflation of ideas going on here. What you do about scouting when you're resource-limited depends almost entirely on what you're trying to achieve. (Much like everything in life.) Are you legitimately aiming to be an alliance captain and make a pick list that can reasonably win you this competition? Then your best and only reliable solution is probably to not be understaffed (or under-trained, for that matter). Realize that this is a two step scouting issue: become an alliance captain and make your pick list.

But scouting that way when it's not your main/achievable goal that weekend won't necessarily help you. If your goal is to play well and get picked, 'gut' scouting isn't so bad. A few well-trained scouts/strategists can give you a lot of insight into your allies and opponents without actually tallying game pieces. In fact, when your team is understaffed but not under-trained in this way, qualitative can be better than quantitative. I've always opted for good qualitative over bad quantitative, and it hasn't let me down yet.

On the third hand, if you're aiming for either of these two and/or to get deeper into the FRC community, joint-team scouting can be great. Just understand it has its pitfalls.

On the fourth hand, if you goal is just to get better at the game (including scouting), you probably want a mix of qualitative and quantitative for your own team. I and most of the coaches I play with will keep at least one top scout on 'gut' duty--usually more than one--whenever we're fully staffed. That means at some point those guys need gut scout training. On the other hand, good quantitative scouting also requires practice.

Much like everything in this business, your scouting strategy needs match your competition strategy. Be honest with yourself - don't discount a strategy that (probably) won't make you Championship Alliance Captain when that's not your team's goal at the given moment.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Siri

I think there's a lot of conflation of ideas going on here. What you do about scouting when you're resource-limited depends almost entirely on what you're trying to achieve. (Much like everything in life.) Are you legitimately aiming to be an alliance captain and make a pick list that can reasonably win you this competition? Then your best and only reliable solution is probably to not be understaffed (or under-trained, for that matter). Realize that this is a two step scouting issue: become an alliance captain and make your pick list.

But scouting that way when it's not your main/achievable goal that weekend won't necessarily help you. If your goal is to play well and get picked, 'gut' scouting isn't so bad. A few well-trained scouts/strategists can give you a lot of insight into your allies and opponents without actually tallying game pieces. In fact, when your team is understaffed but not under-trained in this way, qualitative can be better than quantitative. I've always opted for good qualitative over bad quantitative, and it hasn't let me down yet.

On the third hand, if you're aiming for either of these two and/or to get deeper into the FRC community, joint-team scouting can be great. Just understand it has its pitfalls.

On the fourth hand, if you goal is just to get better at the game (including scouting), you probably want a mix of qualitative and quantitative for your own team. I and most of the coaches I play with will keep at least one top scout on 'gut' duty--usually more than one--whenever we're fully staffed. That means at some point those guys need gut scout training. On the other hand, good quantitative scouting also requires practice.

Much like everything in this business, your scouting strategy needs match your competition strategy. Be honest with yourself - don't discount a strategy that (probably) won't make you Championship Alliance Captain when that's not your team's goal at the given moment.

I have to disagree with a few points here.
The problem with scouting under the assumption you won't be an alliance captain is that sometimes you still end up an alliance captain.
Every team should have a picklist going into Saturday morning, because a) they could end up an alliance captain, and b) they could get picked by a team with no pick list.

In my opinion and experience, quantitative scouting is almost always better than qualitative. That being said, if you're unable to put together the people in your team or through multiple teams to have a quantitative scouting group, qualitative is better than nothing (and is often a good supplement to hard data anyway.)

[jaykris284]

1261 is at Palmetto (a 1st week regional) but is also sending 3 or 4 people to Perry (also a 1st week regional) who will be scouting in collaboration with team 2974 Walton Robotics. We will share data from Palmetto and they will share data from Perry, it is a win-win for both of us.