Interesting observation on stats for this year (to the end of March)

[maxnz]

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU

I find it interesting that there has been exactly 1000 more qualification matches than elimination matches. What a coincidence

I think you mean 10000.

Also, the total number of opportunities vary between defense classes. Probably just some data glitch. But it still is about a 10000 match difference.

Qualifications:
A - 12663
B - 12665 
C - 12656
D - 12655

Playoffs:
A - 2660
B - 2656
C - 2656
D - 2652

[Eugene Fang]

Originally Posted by maxnz

I think you mean 10000.

Also, the total number of opportunities vary between defense classes. Probably just some data glitch. But it still is about a 10000 match difference.

Qualifications:
A - 12663
B - 12665 
C - 12656
D - 12655

Playoffs:
A - 2660
B - 2656
C - 2656
D - 2652

Sometimes the FIRST API returns "unknown" for a defense. I believe this happens because recording what a defense is isn't required for a match to begin.

[Ari423]

Right now a z test of the data yields a p-value of .273 (i.e. very not statistically significant). That means there is a 27.3% chance that this is just random chance causing the gap, not an actual correlation. Until we get more data or the gap grows substantially, we can't conclude that there is any correlation rather than just random chance. Statistics ftw.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Ari423

Right now a z test of the data yields a p-value of .273 (i.e. very not statistically significant). That means there is a 27.3% chance that this is just random chance causing the gap, not an actual correlation. Until we get more data or the gap grows substantially, we can't conclude that there is any correlation rather than just random chance. Statistics ftw.

What "gap" are you referring to, and to whom are you responding?

There's no quoted context for your post, and it's linked to post #5

[Ari423]

Originally Posted by Ether

What "gap" are you referring to, and to whom are you responding?

There's no quoted context for your post, and it's linked to post #5

I was referring to the gap between the percentages of C class crossings in quals vs elims. There just isn't a big enough difference in the percentages given the sample size to be statistically significant, even if there are many perfectly valid reasons why there may be less C class crossings in elims.

I was responding to the OP (or just trying to provide added insight in general). If my post was linked to post#5, it wasn't intentional.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Ari423

I was responding to the OP (or just trying to provide added insight in general). If my post was linked to post#5, it wasn't intentional.

To respond to the OP (and link to it), go to the OP post and click the "Quote" button. That will link your post to the OP, and provide quoted context.

If you just click "Post reply" it will reply (and link to) to the most recent post, not the OP. With the wrong linking, and no quoted context, sometimes it's not clear what your post is referring to.

[M217]

Random guess, but it could also be that Drawbridge seems to me to be more common in Elims than Quals, which could be contributing.

No stats to back this up at all, obv.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by M217

Random guess, but it could also be that Drawbridge seems to me to be more common in Elims than Quals, which could be contributing.

No stats to back this up at all, obv.

Here are the stats.

Drawbridge frequency in quals: 30.3%
Drawbridge frequency in playoffs: 27.2%

Source: http://www.thebluealliance.com/insig...#year-specific

[M217]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

Here are the stats.

Drawbridge frequency in quals: 30.3%
Drawbridge frequency in playoffs: 27.2%

Source: http://www.thebluealliance.com/insig...#year-specific

Oppa, I stand corrected. thank you for the numbers.

I guess I'll renege to the more plausible explanation, then, that this isn't statistically significant at all.

[g_sawchuk]

It's quite concerning that the Sally Port and Drawbridge (Class C Defenses) don't actually have a higher frequency in eliminations.

Class C defenses have typically been tackled by two robots working together, one propping the door or bridge open, the other driving through. Some alliances have made it as part of their game play, having their best two robots go through together, others have put poor robots to the task as a "side job" so that they don't interfere with the "carry" robot, that can do all defenses except Class C. This almost guarantees that they won't have to worry about a robot getting on a defense that they can breach. If the two robots manage to get it, no complaints, extra points - it's a win-win.

A reason to not see the Class C with a higher frequency in eliminations is just that - there isn't more than one poor robot that need to be given a "side job".

However, the Class C defenses could play a very important role as the quality of FRC Stronghold matches improve. It's quite plausible that we will still see 2nd pick robots that struggle to do much, even in regards to crossing terrain defenses. It is safe to assume though, that they will be able to drive on a flat surface. This is where the Class C defenses can tie in to add a 10 point bonus to an alliance's "end game" (the last 20 seconds of their match). The offensive robot can come from the other side, and prop the door open for the 1st pick. The 2nd pick, assuming limited terrain crossing, but still capable of driving, can cross the C defenses as they are just a bump once the door is open. All three robots can then drive across into the courtyard, train formation (choo, choo!), positioning all three robots in a very capable position to challenge the castle. As we reach Championships, this triple challenge will become important, as we'll be seeing many more towers being reduced to 0 strength.

An important thing to note is that this play could be carried out in Qualifications or Eliminations. However, the plausibility of it being carried out successfully is much higher in eliminations (which leads me to believe that the frequency of C defenses being crossed in Eliminations will eventually beat the frequency of C defenses being crossed in Qualifications). This is due to the fact that you are playing several consecutive matches in Eliminations with the exact same alliance. This allows you to fine tune your execution of such a strategy, smoothing out your game play, and making way for a more coordination-involved play like the one listed above.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by g_sawchuk

It's quite concerning that the Sally Port and Drawbridge (Class C Defenses) don't actually have a higher frequency in eliminations.

Class C defenses have typically been tackled by two robots working together, one propping the door or bridge open, the other driving through. Some alliances have made it as part of their game play, having their best two robots go through together, others have put poor robots to the task as a "side job" so that they don't interfere with the "carry" robot, that can do all defenses except Class C. This almost guarantees that they won't have to worry about a robot getting on a defense that they can breach. If the two robots manage to get it, no complaints, extra points - it's a win-win.

The other benefit of putting your so called "poor" robots on opening the sally port / drawbridge is that it allows the "good" robots several seconds to actually see the courtyard, collect stray balls, etc. This combined with the effective point contribution being equal to two extra high goals, makes it something very much worth using your two worst robots on if they have time to do it. Not hard to have your #2 scorer hold the door open as your defender returns to your side of the field, then you quickly loop back to get the double cross before landing on the batter.