PCH District: State Championship Predictions

[PCH Informer]

Finally…
Looking back at Kennesaw, we can breathe a sigh of relief and say, “finally.”

We saw gameplay where high goalers reached their mark and low goalers perfected their craft. We saw captures, we saw scales, we saw autonomous scoring, and we even saw some vision processing.

When we take all of that into consideration, it’s no surprise that Kennesaw was easily the most competitive district we’ve had so far. Don’t believe us? Just consider the following statistics:

Total Captures Before Kennesaw: 7
Captures at Kennesaw: 23

Highest Average Win Score Before Kennesaw: 75.6 (Albany)
Average Win Score at Kennesaw: 82.3

Total Scales Before Kennesaw: 2
Scales at Kennesaw: 12

These numbers, along with the ever evolving field, bode really well for the district championship, where we expect the cream of the crop to blow the Kennesaw numbers out of the water.

Looking Forward to States…
Considering the teams that took the field at Kennesaw, we expect states to be the nexus of competition in our district. This nexus will come as a result of a season-long marathon in which teams have been steadily improving and refining their machines.

While some teams will be shooting for the first time, we fully expect high goal shooters to become more efficient and more accurate in their gameplay. Ultimately this will result in high goal shooters securing some of the higher seeded positions that have eluded them so far.

But that will come in the face of low goalers that are only getting better. The low-goaling elite at Kennesaw easily put away 6-8 boulders per match, and it’s not hard to walk with 3-4 RPs per match with that kind of production.

However, if you’re looking for a flavor of the gameplay at states, consider these statistics put up at the PNW, CHS, and NC state championships this past weekend.

Captures at PNW: 141 out of 292 (48%)
Captures at NC: 43 out of 162 (26%)
Captures at CHS: 105 out of 268 (39%)

Average Win Score at PNW: 114.36
Average Win Score at NC: 99.41
Average Win Score at CHS: 103.22

Top 8 Robots…
Turning our attention towards specific teams we set out to determine and rank the top 8 robots in the state. However, that begs the question, what exactly qualifies a robot to be determined as the best.

Now, that debate can go on forever, but using the data available to us, we set out capture and quantify three robot and team qualities: raw power, ability to navigate the tournament, and luck.

Our analysis shows the top 8 robots, in order, to be the following:

1. 2974
2. 4188
3. 1746
4. 1261
5. 2415
6. 4468
7. 1648
8. 5632

High Goal Shooters…
2974, 2415, 1261, 3600, and potentially 4188 and 1648, make up the ranks of the prominent high goal shooters in our district. However, shooters often have to balance their targets with goal throughput, and this is especially true in this year’s game.

Only 2415 has shown the potential to marry throughput and the high goal, but even they have struggled to deliver that level of performance on a consistent basis.

Other teams are hoping that vision will come to their aid, but it hasn’t particularly helped 1261. We’ll give them credit for using vision to establish a powerful high goal autonomous, but in teleop, they’ve plateaued at 3-4 high goals in a match.

The other shooters in our list are in a similar or worse position, and they’ll find that as long as they continue to value high goals over throughput (especially in quals), low goal-ing robots will always be at their heels.

Low Goal Robots…
So far, our district has been at the mercy of low goal-ing robots. Teams like 1746 and 4468 represent the cream of the crop. They put away 6-8 low goals per match and can cross nearly any defense that teams throw at them.

However, the other low goalers in the field are not to be out-done. 5332, 5632, and 5132 all know how to deliver, and each one of these teams gave the 1st and 2nd seed a world of hurt in the semifinals at Kennesaw.

As the game evolves and shooters become more potent, low goal-ing will continue to be marginalized. With that being said, we don’t anticipate that low goalers will be out of style by states and we even predict that we’ll see more than a couple low goalers in the top 8.

Climbers…
Climbers haven’t really been a part of the equation in our district. Even now, the gameplay is shifting towards high goals and captures, and few people are paying any attention to potentially climbing.

As such, 5632, 1771, and 5608 climbed multiples in Kennesaw and we suspect that they will only improve at states.

However, as low goalers hit their ceilings and high goaling teams find ways to fill up their idle time, we suspect that more teams will be unwrapping climbers at states.

Chairmans…
With all of our district events coming to an end, we’re now a position to looking at our District Chairman’s Award Winners. The old guard (read: 2974 and 1311) rightfully sit with their DCAs waiting for a crack at the District Championships Chairman’s Award. However, they’re joined by 1261 and 1648, both of which are new to the Chairman’s scene, but will no doubt be looking for their numbers to be called on Saturday afternoon.

With respect to 1261 and 1648, the old guard is the old guard for a reason. 2974 and 1311 have outreach programs that span the state and are the culmination of many years worth of work. As such, while the new guard may have spiffy presentations, they’re going to struggle against the might of the old guard.

However, the DCCA isn’t awarded lightly and may just come down to the final products, delivery at states, and what the judges had for lunch.

As such, we rank the DCA teams in the following order:

1. 1311
2. 2974
3. 1648
4. 1261