top 25 teams by category

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty

Are teams with 100% breach rates common?

That is an excellent question that my current database is ill-equipped to satisfactorily answer. Here's my best guess, maybe in the future I will have the tools to do better.

The average breaching contribution per team is .193. That is, three average teams together would average about 57% of a breach. Thus, teams with breach contributions of 1-(2*.193) = .614 could be expected to breach every match. 54 teams meet that criterion.

Obviously, this method has some major flaws, but it should give a decent ballpark estimate.

[carpedav000]

Congrats to 1024 for being in the same list twice!

[jajabinx124]

Originally Posted by carpedav000

Congrats to 1024 for being in the same list twice!

I'm guessing one of them is 1023.. typo maybe.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by carpedav000

Congrats to 1024 for being in the same list twice!

Originally Posted by jajabinx124

I'm guessing one of them is 1023.. typo maybe.

No typo. 1024 contributed 18.63 boulder points per match at the Tippecanoe district event, and 22.33 boulder points per match at the Walker-Warren district event.

[carpedav000]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

No typo. 1024 contributed 18.63 boulder points per match at the Tippecanoe district event, and 22.33 boulder points per match at the Walker-Warren district event.

Then wouldn't you average the two?

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by carpedav000

Then wouldn't you average the two?

That would be one way to do it.

I was originally going to list both the team number and the event in these lists, but the code tags provided by CD's text editor were being annoying, so I just dropped the event information.

[dirtbikerxz]

You should do a category of bots with the highest defense (defense breaching) points.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by dirtbikerxz

You should do a category of bots with the highest defense (defense breaching) points.

As you wish.

rank	team	crossing points
1	1418	26.00
2	4061	25.76
3	11	24.57
4	1418	23.87
5	1746	23.56
6	3102	23.43
7	2637	23.36
8	4931	23.36
9	3937	23.34
10	4680	23.05
11	4468	23.05
12	4384	22.91
13	3999	22.91
14	2642	22.91
15	4680	22.74
16	5632	22.36
17	5587	22.33
18	2974	21.99
19	16	21.93
20	79	21.92
21	4911	21.83
22	818	21.81
23	4935	21.80
24	1797	21.72
25	3005	21.68

Be careful interpreting these though, remember that it is much easier to get high crossing points at weaker events.

[lurker]

Does this data only include qualification numbers?

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by lurker

Does this data only include qualification numbers?

Yes.

[Anthony Galea]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

As you wish.

rank	team	crossing points
[snip]
10	4680	23.05
[snip]
15	4680	22.74
[snip]

Be careful interpreting these though, remember that it is much easier to get high crossing points at weaker events.

For those of you who haven't seen 4680's robot yet, I would definitely check them out. They are probably the leading candidate for MCC this year IMHO. They have been the #6 pick and #5 captain at their first two events, respectively.

[jspatz1]

Summing Caleb's four categories into a cumulative rank, where the points for each category =26-rank, the top 25 are:

1. 2056 - 75
2. 359 - 53
3. 148 - 46
4. 1986 - 43
5. 118 - 41
6. 1114 - 35
7. 2481 - 35
8. 3683 - 33
9. 2122 - 27
10. 4982 - 27
11. 2122 - 27
12. 4334 - 26
13. 708 - 25
14. 1876 - 25
15. 233 - 24
16. 1418 - 24
17. 1747 - 23
18. 337 - 23
19. 254 - 22
20. 987 - 22
21. 3937 - 22
22. 610 - 21
23. 330 - 21
24. 2200 - 21
25. 4451 - 20

[Bochek]

How can a team have more then 15 scaling points per match average?

[Matt_Boehm_329]

I'm interested in how you are calculating these? Some teams have negative values for boulders scored. Are you trying to run these numbers the same way OPR and CCWM are calculated?

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by carpedav000

Then wouldn't you average the two?

Average would not necessarily be useful since every event is different - then again, we are trying to compare all of the teams worldwide, which have competed in dozens of different events. My personal choice for list would probably be to include teams only once, with their highest calculated performance, in order to have a unique top 25.