Upset Percentage

[Gogoyogert]

Here is a spreadsheet I made for English class with all the upsets from the past 4 years: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Something I think a lot of teams did across the board for champs that might not be ideal was scouting defense crossings and using that to help calculate overall scores for robots. We opted to not even scout crossings since the breach is guaranteed at the championships level. That being said I wish we did scout crossings just so we can compare what our overall scores list would look like when comparing crossings vs without crossing. I would imagine teams that focus more on poaching the enemies secret passage would move up in our scouting ranking vs teams that cycle.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Gogoyogert

Here is a spreadsheet I made for English class with all the upsets from the past 4 years: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

The numbers on the total do not match the individuals. Looks like you missed three upsets on Galileo on the total?

[Gogoyogert]

Looks like your right. Thanks for point that out! I'll update it right now.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Gogoyogert

Here is a spreadsheet I made for English class with all the upsets from the past 4 years: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

I wish I could have done something that cool for English class...

[Ether]

Originally Posted by AndyBare

Does anyone have a percentage of all elimination matches, within all divisions, and extending onto Einstein, that were upsets (lower seed beating higher seed)?

To answer that question definitively, perhaps a SQL guru will write a script to query Jaci's 2016 SQL database.

[Nate Laverdure]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

I didn't think I would ever see a reverse perfect bracket. That is ridiculous.

There are only 2^7=128 possible elim outcomes. TBA lists 142 events in 2016 alone. It's likely to happen at some frequency.

[Whatever]

Handy table for the odds of a perfect reverse bracket
50% odds of underdog winning-->Once every 128 tournaments
45% --> once every 268 tournaments (roughly 2 years)
40% --> once every 610 tournaments (roughly 4 years)
35% --> once every 1554 tournaments (roughly 10 years)
30% --> once every 4572 tournaments (roughly 30 years)
25% --> once every 16,384 tournaments (roughly 100 years)
20% --> once every 78,125 tournaments (roughly 600 years)

[markmcgary]

Originally Posted by Ether

To answer that question definitively, perhaps a SQL guru will write a script to query Jaci's 2016 SQL database.

That sounds like a challenge. According to my query, there were 720 upsets out of 2273 playoff matches. This does not count ties where the fouls determined the outcome. I checked this against Einstein and it looks accurate.

select matches.event, events.name, match_levels.name, matches.set_number, matches.match_number,
red_scores.total_points as red_points, blue_scores.total_points as blue_points from matches
inner join events on matches.event = events.id
inner join match_levels on matches.match_level = match_levels.id
inner join match_scores as red_scores on matches.id = red_scores.match
inner join match_scores as blue_scores on matches.id = blue_scores.match
where match_level > 1
and red_scores.alliance_color = "red"
and blue_scores.alliance_color = "blue"
and blue_points > red_points
and events.is_official = 1
order by matches.event

Edit: You can add one upset for Einstein Final Match 3 which I know was tied. That makes 31.7% playoff upsets.

Edit 2: I added some logic to figure out upsets that were tie scores. That added 7 total upsets. 32%. Interestingly, 4322 won an upset on a tie at OCR QF2-1. That match now shows in the results.

and (blue_points > red_points or (blue_points = red_points and blue_scores.foul_points > red_scores.foul_points))

[antman]

Originally Posted by markmcgary

and (blue_points > red_points or (blue_points = red_points and blue_scores.foul_points > red_scores.foul_points))

You are assuming the blue alliance is always the lower-seeded alliance. This isn't always the case. For example:

<http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2016pncmp_f1m1>

we were on the red alliance even though we were the #5 alliance going against the #2 alliance.

[markmcgary]

Originally Posted by antman

You are assuming the blue alliance is always the lower-seeded alliance. This isn't always the case. For example:

<http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2016pncmp_f1m1>

we were on the red alliance even though we were the #5 alliance going against the #2 alliance.

That could certainly impact the results. I thought that red was always the higher seeded alliance and alliances sometimes change bumper colors during playoffs to maintain that relationship. I'd have to study the database design more deeply to determine the relationships between the matches, alliances and their seeding. I took the easy way assuming (incorrectly?) that blue was always the lower seed. The SQL will get more ugly. I wonder how significant will be the impact on the percentage?

[Ether]

Originally Posted by markmcgary

I'd have to study the database design more deeply to determine the relationships between the matches, alliances and their seeding.

The "alliance_picks" table has the alliance seeding.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by markmcgary

That could certainly impact the results. I thought that red was always the higher seeded alliance and alliances sometimes change bumper colors during playoffs to maintain that relationship. I'd have to study the database design more deeply to determine the relationships between the matches, alliances and their seeding. I took the easy way assuming (incorrectly?) that blue was always the lower seed. The SQL will get more ugly. I wonder how significant will be the impact on the percentage?

Easy way to do it: Red is from the highest seed in that branch of the bracket (1-8/4-5|2-7/3-6), regardless of if that seed moves on. #8 has red over #2, should they meet in finals.

Thus, #1 is always red. #8 is blue, but can take over red if they beat #1. #2 is red, unless they're in finals; #7 is blue unless they beat #2. #3 is red against #6, and blue otherwise (#6 is always blue). #4 is red against #5, blue for semis, and red for finals (while #5 is blue unless they're in finals).


Or, to put it another way:
Alliance: QFs, SFs, Fs (assuming they make it that far)
#1: R, R, R
#2: R, R, B
#3: R, B, B
#4: R, B, R
#5: B, B, R
#6: B, B, B
#7: B, R, B
#8: B, R, R

Best reason to be on the #1 alliance, you don't change your bumper color. (OK, so #6 has the same perk...)

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by EricH

#6: B, B, B
Best reason to be on the #1 alliance, you don't change your bumper color. (OK, so #6 has the same perk...)

Some robots just look better in blue anyways.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by CalTran

Some robots just look better in blue anyways.

254.