List(s) of OPR?

[Eugene Fang]

Originally Posted by Ether

How do they handle DQs and surrogates?

We don't.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Eugene Fang

We don't.

Well, when it comes to surrogates, you actually had to make a choice:


1) Change the negative team number (surrogate) to positive and do the computation. When a team plays as surrogate, the alliance score will count against their OPR.

or

2) Leave the team number as negative. The surrogate will be considered a completely separate team, and will be assigned its own OPR

or

3) Replace negative team number with 0 (or some other placeholder). Team 0 will be assigned its own OPR, even though it represents contributions from several different surrogate teams

or

4) Ignore the match entirely (leave the entire match out of the design matrix). The alliance scores for that match will be omitted from the remaining non-surrogate teams in the match.

or

5) Include the match, leaving the surrogate team out of the design matrix


I realize some of the options above are poor choices.

I think Option (1) is the best approach. Is that what you did?

[Eugene Fang]

Originally Posted by Ether

Well, when it comes to surrogates, you actually had to make a choice:


1) Change the negative team number (surrogate) to positive and do the computation. When a team plays as surrogate, the alliance score will count against their OPR.

or

2) Leave the team number as negative. The surrogate will be considered a completely separate team, and will be assigned its own OPR

or

3) Replace negative team number with 0 (or some other placeholder). Team 0 will be assigned its own OPR, even though it represents contributions from several different surrogate teams

or

4) Ignore the match entirely (leave the entire match out of the design matrix). The alliance scores for that match will be omitted from the remaining non-surrogate teams in the match.

or

5) Include the match, leaving the surrogate team out of the design matrix


I realize some of the options above are poor choices.

I think Option (1) is the best approach. Is that what you did?

I don't understand why surrogates need to be accounted for differently. Can you please explain? Thanks.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Eugene Fang

I don't understand why surrogates need to be accounted for differently. Can you please explain? Thanks.

I should have been clearer. I wasn't suggesting that they need to be accounted for differently.

In fact, Option1 (which I suggested is the best one) treats them as if they were not surrogates.

I was just asking if that's the way TBA does it.

[Eugene Fang]

Originally Posted by Ether

I should have been clearer. I wasn't suggesting that they need to be accounted for differently.

In fact, Option1 (which I suggested is the best one) treats them as if they were not surrogates.

I was just asking if that's the way TBA does it.

I guess I should have been more clear as well. When I said "We don't," I meant that we don't do anything special (your option 1). I'm not sure what you mean by "negative team number."

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Eugene Fang

I'm not sure what you mean by "negative team number."

That was for the benefit of readers who don't have access to (or don't know how to use) the API. FIRST displays surrogate teams in parentheses (accounting lingo for negative number) on their Match Results pages.

AFAIK (I haven't confirmed this yet), when a team plays as a surrogate for an alliance, FIRST does not include that alliance's scores in the surrogate team's totals that they report on the Rankings page.

[Eugene Fang]

Originally Posted by Ether

That was for the benefit of readers who don't have access to (or don't know how to use) the API. FIRST displays surrogate teams in parentheses (accounting lingo for negative number) on their Match Results pages.

AFAIK (I haven't confirmed this yet), when a team plays as a surrogate for an alliance, FIRST does not include that alliance's scores in the surrogate team's totals that they report on the Rankings page.

Ah, that makes much more sense.

I haven't confirmed it either, but the a team's points in the rankings better not be affected by the alliance's scores in which that team is a surrogate. That would completely defeat the point of surrogates.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Eugene Fang

Ah, that makes much more sense.

I haven't confirmed it either, but the a team's points in the rankings better not be affected by the alliance's scores in which that team is a surrogate. That would completely defeat the point of surrogates.

Agreed. But it creates a problem (mathematically speaking) for the computation of component OPR: If you include the surrogate in the design matrix, but the component scores reported in the rankings do not include the surrogate match alliance scores in the surrogate's totals, it skews the data.

This is one of the issues Ed Law strives to address in his scouting database by doing some manipulation of the data, but there's really no totally correct way around this with the data currently available.

[microbuns]

Does anyone know of a place to quickly access (live) OPRs at a match? TBA does part of the job (top 15), but is there anywhere that does the same thing but with more than top 15?

[Dunngeon]

Originally Posted by microbuns

Does anyone know of a place to quickly access (live) OPRs at a match? TBA does part of the job (top 15), but is there anywhere that does the same thing but with more than top 15?

http://team955.org/apps/opr/

It won't be super accurate until more matches have been played than teams. This is true with all OPR calculations though.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Dunngeon

http://team955.org/apps/opr/

How are you handling surrogates in the computation of OPRs using data from the Team Rankings table?

[Dunngeon]

Originally Posted by Ether

How are you handling surrogates in the computation of OPRs using data from the Team Rankings table?

Quite simply, we don't.

I've noticed you asking about surrogates and DQ's on every OPR thread, why?

[microbuns]

Originally Posted by Dunngeon

http://team955.org/apps/opr/

It won't be super accurate until more matches have been played than teams. This is true with all OPR calculations though.

This looks like the kind of thing I'm looking for! However the numbers look a bit low - is it calculating OPRs with a score of 0 for all future matches?

[Dunngeon]

Originally Posted by microbuns

This looks like the kind of thing I'm looking for! However the numbers look a bit low - is it calculating OPRs with a score of 0 for all future matches?

The numbers won't be correct until there are more matches than teams.

We aren't sure, but it seems that OPR is still somewhat correct for in-progress events with less matches than teams. Obviously, the numbers aren't right but they appear to be representative. For example, Waterloo shows 1114 with a higher OPR than 2056 which makes sense given their prior performances. The remaining teams flesh out pretty much where I would expect them too as well.