List(s) of OPR?

[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?

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Dunngeon

Quite simply, we don't.

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

Because I'm interested in how various OPR app developers are handling that question.

In a match with an alliance containing a surrogate team, the scores (Coop, Auto, RC, Tote, Litter) for that alliance in that match are not included in that surrogate team's totals as reported in the Rankings table. So without some algorithmic legerdemain, the computed category OPRs for every team that plays in an event as a surrogate will be lower than they "should" be.

Unfortunately, there is really no mathematically "correct" way to deal with this, because this year FIRST does not provide the data required to handle this issue properly.

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by Dunngeon

Quite simply, we don't.

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

I am glad that everybody is not doing anything special to calculate OPR. This means it is just another match and one more data point. This is how it was done starting from 2006. I am doing it the same way also. I don't think anybody should change that.

What Ether is asking everybody about has to do with calculating Component OPR only. I already explained that in my post and how I did it in case anybody wanted to duplicate that in their own program. It is very important to me that as a community we all calculate it the same way.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

What Ether is asking everybody about has to do with calculating Component OPR only.

Correct. And the reason I asked Dunngeon is because Team 955's (excellent) online OPR calculator does compute component OPRs.

To see what I am talking about, go here and look through the list of links at the top of the page to find the one described as follows:

ZIP file containing 47 CSV files (one for each event in weeks 1 thru 3).
CSV can be opened directly in Excel (if file association is set).
Each CSV contains all Match Results and Team Standings data
in columns. The last 3 columns in each CSV illustrate what happens when
there are DQs or surrogates.

... and click the link underneath that description to download it.

Open the ZIP file and look at the FLFO event.

Originally Posted by Ed Law

It is very important to me that as a community we all calculate it the same way.

I don't think that's going to happen until FIRST provides the data necessary to do these computations in a straightforward manner (requiring no special work-arounds for missing data).

[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.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Dunngeon

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

Can you explain what you mean by this?