Week 1 Number One Seed Score Average

[Jared]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Not only are there a lot of posts that overestimate like they do every year, it's particularly odd this year. Why? Let's recap

1) This is the hardest game in the modern era.
<snip>
5) This is the hardest game in the modern era.

I do agree that this game is spectacularly difficult and slower paced than most games (many teams had to speed up their robot reveal videos and make cuts - it's not too exciting to see a robot park in front of a feeder station and load 6 totes for 25 seconds), but I'm not as pessimistic as you are.

Here are a few reasons:
1). Teams have access to an amazing selection of COTS parts this year, including REV robotics bearings/extrusions for making simple lifts, new Vex Pro and AndyMark gearboxes for powering these lifts, and many options for affordable, off the shelf drive systems. These COTS products are cheaper than ever before, so building a decent elevator is no longer too difficult.

2). There are a decent number of reasonable easy points to get. Coopertition sets are quite easy to get, and a coopertition stack only requires one robot to do any stacking so it may happen more than the 2012 co-op bridge, which required two robots to be good balancers.

3). There's less room for robot damage. In previous years, there has been lots of defense, things to fall off of, things to crash into, and scoring racks to get tangled in. This year, there's not much on the field that can damage your robot.

4). It's easy to practice. A practice field can be very close to the competition field this year. Teams need less room to set up the field, and the scoring platforms, tote chute, and step are much less complicated than the 2013 tower + goals, the 2012 bridge + hoops, and is as easy to build as the 2014 low goal and high goal.

5). RI3D. The Team Indiana lexan flaps are a great idea that many teams have implemented.

I could be wrong, but it seems like we've gotten carried away with saying that teams will always do worse than we expect.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Jared

I do agree that this game is spectacularly difficult and slower paced than most games (many teams had to speed up their robot reveal videos and make cuts - it's not too exciting to see a robot park in front of a feeder station and load 6 totes for 25 seconds), but I'm not as pessimistic as you are.

Here are a few reasons:
1). Teams have access to an amazing selection of COTS parts this year, including REV robotics bearings/extrusions for making simple lifts, new Vex Pro and AndyMark gearboxes for powering these lifts, and many options for affordable, off the shelf drive systems. These COTS products are cheaper than ever before, so building a decent elevator is no longer too difficult.

2). There are a decent number of reasonable easy points to get. Coopertition sets are quite easy to get, and a coopertition stack only requires one robot to do any stacking so it may happen more than the 2012 co-op bridge, which required two robots to be good balancers.

3). There's less room for robot damage. In previous years, there has been lots of defense, things to fall off of, things to crash into, and scoring racks to get tangled in. This year, there's not much on the field that can damage your robot.

4). It's easy to practice. A practice field can be very close to the competition field this year. Teams need less room to set up the field, and the scoring platforms, tote chute, and step are much less complicated than the 2013 tower + goals, the 2012 bridge + hoops, and is as easy to build as the 2014 low goal and high goal.

5). RI3D. The Team Indiana lexan flaps are a great idea that many teams have implemented.

I could be wrong, but it seems like we've gotten carried away with saying that teams will always do worse than we expect.

1) Building the elevator would not have been the hardest part of this game even without COTS.

2) Even if you think Co-op stacks/sets are easy to get, the act of placing the scoring objects is not the hardest part of this maneuver. It's both alliances understanding pre-planning and both alliances able to execute this.

3) Damage by opponents has been replaced with damage by partners and/or falling scoring objects. The COTS factor you mentioned in #1 rears its ugly head here. Even smart teams are running 2 speed ballshifters. High speed impacts into a frame w/o bumpers is not fun. In terms of game piece weight, the cans are the heaviest and the totes are the third heaviest scoring objects in the modern era. The second heaviest object, the tetra, were not scored on precarious goals on the field, but on two bumps that cross over half the field.

4) It is easy to practice, but given the difficulty of the game I've been trying to describe, and weather in some places, how much time did WEEK 1 teams get to practice, even for the select group with a practice machine?

5) Ri3D may be the downfall of some teams. How many machines adequately covered how to acquire totes from the landfill or station and adequately communicated to people who use those resources that that is such a priority?

[eddie12390]

I mistakenly made this poll end a week later than I had intended to. I plan to post another poll Saturday night along with a quick analysis of how well Chief Delphi was able to predict scoring and how that ability to predict changes over the season. The level of discussion and widely varying votes have piqued my interest. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the poll I was unable to do anything meaningful statistically with the data. Next week's poll will have a more realistic minimum and will not include any values that aren't numerical. Thanks to everyone who voted. In case anyone is interested, here's a slightly prettier chart of the data provided. I find it funny how closely it resembles a normal curve up until the very end of the chart.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by eddie12390

I mistakenly made this poll end a week later than I had intended to. I plan to post another poll Saturday night along with a quick analysis of how well Chief Delphi was able to predict scoring and how that ability to predict changes over the season. The level of discussion and widely varying votes have piqued my interest. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the poll I was unable to do anything meaningful statistically with the data. Next week's poll will have a more realistic minimum and will not include any values that aren't numerical. Thanks to everyone who voted. In case anyone is interested, here's a slightly prettier chart of the data provided. I find it funny how closely it resembles a normal curve up until the very end of the chart.

The end of the chart isn't a single category of 10 points, it's everyone who thinks 140 and above. That will inherently skew it.

[eddie12390]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

The end of the chart isn't a single category of 10 points, it's everyone who thinks 140 and above. That will inherently skew it.

I understand, I commented on that in my post.

[Chris is me]

60.

Keep in mind no one plays at full strength on match 1 of week 1, I expect the average #1 seed to be as good as a team that can auto and co-op consistently, even if they do nothing else.

Some regionals won't have this robot, some teams with this robot won't be consistent every match, but the somewhat fluctuating nature of extra can points somewhat cancels this out.

[Nick Lawrence]

60 is about right IMHO. Remember it's an average not a median. This game is hard.

-Nick

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Starting to agree around 60-70. Even with a strong regional like Dallas where at least one team will probably be able to consistently put up very high points, it isn't really going to affect the average number 1 seed score across all regionals that much.