top 25 teams by category

[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.

[Bob Steele]

How does a team average higher than 15 in scale points?

?

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

How does a team average higher than 15 in scale points?

?

If they play X matches there are more than X scales in those matches. Doesn't matter who actually scaled, this is all alliance based.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

How does a team average higher than 15 in scale points?

?

These values are calculated in the same way that OPR values are calculated. The numbers shown indicate a given team's average contribution to a given scoring category, which is not necessarily the amount that they themselves score in that category. The amount greater than 15 from 1876 could just be noise, but it could possibly indicate something deeper. For example, 1876 might have scaled from the side rungs, which left the easier center rung available for other climbers.

[Spartan710]

At our event this weekend we went 13 for 15 in scaling. So to say that those teams are better isn't really correct. It just means that their alliances were better.

[Breakaway3937]

Originally Posted by Spartan710

At our event this weekend we went 13 for 15 in scaling. So to say that those teams are better isn't really correct. It just means that their alliances were better.

Just remember that it depends on how you play the game. We go into every qualification match wanting to take down the tower and breach. It is hard to quantify a team this year by statistics since strategies are so different. Point in case, we are high in the rankings for defense points because we knew the value and ease of the breach ranking point so we made sure to tackle the defenses during qual matches and when we had alliance members that struggled with certain defenses, we would go and cover those thus taking our shooting scores down since we were no longer shooting. The key to this year's game is creating a robot that can fill the void where you may be missing alliance members. With this year's game, the numbers may not show how great your robot is in one specific area, but if you can cover the field in a case by case scenario, the ranking points sure will. It all depends on the quality of the regional. 2056 had a lot of opportunity to shot because of the quality of their alliance partners. If you are the best shooter, like 2056, and your other alliance partners can handle the necessary defenses, that takes a large load off of you. There are a lot of really good bots who may not be in any of these rankings due to varying their strategies match by match.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Spartan710

At our event this weekend we went 13 for 15 in scaling. So to say that those teams are better isn't really correct. It just means that their alliances were better.

Firstly, these results only account for qualification matches. I'm not sure what your climb success rate was in quals, but the data potentially implies that your team was about 9/12.

Secondly, the calculated contribution results do a pretty good job of separating individual teams out from their random alliances given that the metric of interest is separable. Scale points are pretty separable, that is, whether or not a given robot on an alliance scales has little impact on whether another robot on this alliance scales. Crossing points are not so separable (which is why I did not originally post the crossing rankings) since a robot that can cross all defenses will almost never contribute 50 crossing points.

[Spartan710]

I was not trying to pick it a part. In quals we went 10/12 and in elems went 3/3. I love work you put in to this, so sorry if you thought i was try to pick it apart. the only reason i said that is because the top teams average was above 15 that's all.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Spartan710

I was not trying to pick it a part. In quals we went 10/12 and in elems went 3/3. I love work you put in to this, so sorry if you thought i was try to pick it apart. the only reason i said that is because the top teams average was above 15 that's all.

No problem, I just used your post as an opportunity to clear up some common misconceptions about these calculated contributions.

The exact rankings of teams should be taken with a grain of salt. However, the general relative positions of teams should be correct.

[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?