IRI 2016 Predictions

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by jtrv

W. 2481, 67, 2468, 3620
F. 195, 133, 494, 5254
SF. 330, 118, 27, 1619
SF. 2056, 1241, 1023, 217
QF. 225, 1806, 1746, 2590
QF. 2451, 16, 4587, 20
QF. 3683, 179, 2052, 1718
QF. 3130, 33, 1024, 2338

I'm a big fan of 1114, but 2016 just isn't their year.

Originally Posted by thatprogrammer

I think 1114 did a bit better than you expected

[efoote868]

But Karthik, that so totally is your business!

[PatrickSJ]

Originally Posted by thatprogrammer

I think 1114 did a bit better than you expected

From where I was standing in the driver station during our semi-final matches against 1114's alliance, it sounded like the chains never stopped ringing. I still can't get that sound out of my head.

But for real, thanks to 67, 3683, and 5254 for some awesome matches! and congrats to 2056, 118, 33 and 4587 on the W!

[Brian Maher]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Smart move to have 33 play D in the finals.

It was really the only option for #1. I just watched the higher scoring semifinals match of each alliance again, and counted up teleop high goals for each robot:

• 2056: 6*
• 118: 5*
• 33: 5*
• 1114: 4
• 195: 10
• 225: 5

*Had a hard time seeing a bit of the match when the camera focused on the 1619/133 tipping debacle.
In addition, #2 had an additional scale over #1.
When both alliances run triple offense, math says that #2 outscores #1 (barring something as dramatic as 195's auto failing, which is not something to count on). By putting 33 on defense, they free up easy-to-grab boulders for 2056/118 to score, let's say, 3 extra goals (guesstimate). If 33 defending prevents #2 from scoring 3 boulders, it is worth it. With 1114 shooting only from the batter and 195 preferring a (reasonably defendable) shot in the left courtyard (not that they don't shoot well from other locations, they just do their best in that one), taking three high goals off this alliances doesn't seem like a particular difficult task (with some skilled driving, of course).

Considering that:

• Alliance #2 scored 13 and 14 teleop high goals in finals; under 33's defense, they scored 5-6 fewer goals
• Alliance #1 scored 18 teleop high goals in both finals matches, 1-2 more than with 33 playing offense, so 2056/118 scored 5-6 (!) more goals

having 33 play offense was not only a smart idea, but necessary for #1 to be able to outscore #2 and take the win. Props to 33 for being willing to play defense and the alliance as a whole for realizing the advantage it would confer.

These eliminations matches leave me with one big question: why did 2056 choose 118 over 195? Not that the Robonauts don't have a phenomenal robot, but looking at scouting data, 195 seems to have been the bot with both more consistency and a higher ceiling, especially considering 2-ball auto. I think it may have been due to 2056 playing with 118 earlier in the year at GTR-East, but I'd love some insight as to why they chose the way they did.

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by BMSOTM

It was really the only option for #1. I just watched the higher scoring semifinals match of each alliance again, and counted up teleop high goals for each robot:

• 2056: 6*
• 118: 5*
• 33: 5*
• 1114: 4
• 195: 10
• 225: 5

*Had a hard time seeing a bit of the match when the camera focused on the 1619/133 tipping debacle.
In addition, #2 had an additional scale over #1.
When both alliances run triple offense, math says that #2 outscores #1 (barring something as dramatic as 195's auto failing, which is not something to count on). By putting 33 on defense, they free up easy-to-grab boulders for 2056/118 to score, let's say, 3 extra goals (guesstimate). If 33 defending prevents #2 from scoring 3 boulders, it is worth it. With 1114 shooting only from the batter and 195 preferring a (reasonably defendable) shot in the left courtyard (not that they don't shoot well from other locations, they just do their best in that one), taking three high goals off this alliances doesn't seem like a particular difficult task.

Considering that:

• Alliance #2 scored 13 and 14 teleop high goals in finals; under 33's defense, they scored 5-6 fewer goals
• Alliance #1 scored 18 teleop high goals in both finals matches, 1-2 more than with 33 playing offense, so 2056/118 scored 5-6 (!) more goals

having 33 play offense was not only a smart idea, but necessary for #1 to be able to outscore #2 and take the win.

These eliminations matches leave me with one big question: why did 2056 choose 118 over 195? Looking at scouting data, 195 seems to have been the bot that was both more consistent and had a higher ceiling, especially considering 2-ball auto. I think it may have been due to 2056 playing with 118 earlier in the year at GTR-East, but I'd love some insight as to why they chose the way they did.

This is a good analysis and very similar to the discussion we had about whether or not to put 3683 back in in our second SF match.

This worked for alliance 1 because 118 and 2056 were essentially boulder limited in scoring - having 33 scoring didn't help since the team was still limited by the number of boulders they could get. It actually helped since they had less traffic.

On the contrary I think we needed all 3 robots scoring to even have a chance at keeping up with their 3 scoring.

Thanks to 3620, 3683, and 5254 for the fun run to SFs.

[thatprogrammer]

Originally Posted by BMSOTM

These eliminations matches leave me with one big question: why did 2056 choose 118 over 195? Not that the Robonauts don't have a phenomenal robot, but looking at scouting data, 195 seems to have been the bot with both more consistency and a higher ceiling, especially considering 2-ball auto. I think it may have been due to 2056 playing with 118 earlier in the year at GTR-East, but I'd love some insight as to why they chose the way they did.

NOTE: NOT on 118, this is pure speculation.
They may have not picked 195 for the same reason they chose to make 33 defend them... 195 is pretty susceptible to defense and struggles to make shots when pressured with a great defender. 118 is pretty much unblockable (I think a 15 inch extension can stop them) and seems to work better with defense on them than 195 does.

[bkahl]

Originally Posted by BMSOTM

These eliminations matches leave me with one big question: why did 2056 choose 118 over 195? Not that the Robonauts don't have a phenomenal robot, but looking at scouting data, 195 seems to have been the bot with both more consistency and a higher ceiling, especially considering 2-ball auto. I think it may have been due to 2056 playing with 118 earlier in the year at GTR-East, but I'd love some insight as to why they chose the way they did.

Originally Posted by thatprogrammer

NOTE: NOT on 118, this is pure speculation.
They may have not picked 195 for the same reason they chose to make 33 defend them... 195 is pretty susceptible to defense and struggles to make shots when pressured with a great defender. 118 is pretty much unblockable (I think a 15 inch extension can stop them) and seems to work better with defense on them than 195 does.

I was in Indy this past weekend helping 195 a bit. My father is still a mentor and a close friend is the Drive Coach for the team. I was somewhat involved in strategy and picking talks.

I think Ahad is partially correct here.

118 definitely has a higher release point than 195 for the OW shot, making 118 a little less defend-able.

From a short conversation with 2056's scouts, they definitely brought up this fact- asking 195 what their plan was against a 15" overhang defender. Had defense from the OW become an issue, a 15" buffer mechanism can be used by 195 to keep the defender at bay.

118 also worked with 2056 earlier in the season. Chemistry was already there.

There were no hard feelings anywhere- 2056 informed 195 before alliance selections of their pick in order to help 195 better prepare a pick-list.

At the end of the day- 2056 won with 118. You can't really fault the pick if it helped contribute to a win.

There was A LOT of mutual respect between the 8 teams in the finals. Congratulations were given all around.

[ASD20]

Originally Posted by BMSOTM

It was really the only option for #1. I just watched the higher scoring semifinals match of each alliance again, and counted up teleop high goals for each robot:

• 2056: 6*
• 118: 5*
• 33: 5*
• 1114: 4
• 195: 10
• 225: 5

*Had a hard time seeing a bit of the match when the camera focused on the 1619/133 tipping debacle.
In addition, #2 had an additional scale over #1.
When both alliances run triple offense, math says that #2 outscores #1 (barring something as dramatic as 195's auto failing, which is not something to count on). By putting 33 on defense, they free up easy-to-grab boulders for 2056/118 to score, let's say, 3 extra goals (guesstimate). If 33 defending prevents #2 from scoring 3 boulders, it is worth it. With 1114 shooting only from the batter and 195 preferring a (reasonably defendable) shot in the left courtyard (not that they don't shoot well from other locations, they just do their best in that one), taking three high goals off this alliances doesn't seem like a particular difficult task (with some skilled driving, of course).

Considering that:

• Alliance #2 scored 13 and 14 teleop high goals in finals; under 33's defense, they scored 5-6 fewer goals
• Alliance #1 scored 18 teleop high goals in both finals matches, 1-2 more than with 33 playing offense, so 2056/118 scored 5-6 (!) more goals

having 33 play offense was not only a smart idea, but necessary for #1 to be able to outscore #2 and take the win. Props to 33 for being willing to play defense and the alliance as a whole for realizing the advantage it would confer.

These eliminations matches leave me with one big question: why did 2056 choose 118 over 195? Not that the Robonauts don't have a phenomenal robot, but looking at scouting data, 195 seems to have been the bot with both more consistency and a higher ceiling, especially considering 2-ball auto. I think it may have been due to 2056 playing with 118 earlier in the year at GTR-East, but I'd love some insight as to why they chose the way they did.

I think 2056 vs 195 (both IRI and Einstein) will be remembered as one of the all time greatest examples of the power of defense.

[ArthurF]

Originally Posted by Mike Schreiber

This is a good analysis and very similar to the discussion we had about whether or not to put 3683 back in in our second SF match.

This worked for alliance 1 because 118 and 2056 were essentially boulder limited in scoring - having 33 scoring didn't help since the team was still limited by the number of boulders they could get. It actually helped since they had less traffic.

On the contrary I think we needed all 3 robots scoring to even have a chance at keeping up with their 3 scoring.

Thanks to 3620, 3683, and 5254 for the fun run to SFs.

Unless you can outscore the opponents (which in that case you could never do especially while missing the balls and have difficulties in climb) the only chance of wining this year game is deployment of the very capable defensive robot (analysis of the finals seams to completely conform this statement). 3620 - the captain of the third alliance made fatal decision of not playing 3683 which resulted in loss of semifinals. The third alliance had real chance to get all the way to the finals of the IRI2016.
I am glad we attended the competition. I personally have learned some internals of tactics associated with the alliance selection during IRI competition (which in my personal opinion are scored in very low on the ‘gracious professionalism’ scale). I guess the exposure early on in life to harsh real-life experiences (winning by all means is the priority #1 to some teams out there) together with the mission statement of FIRST is what makes this program great.
Thank you all it was an honor to be participate in the games.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by ArthurF

I personally have learned some internals of tactics associated with the alliance selection during IRI competition (which in my personal opinion are scored in very low on the ‘gracious professionalism’ scale). I guess the exposure early on in life to harsh real-life experiences (winning by all means is the priority #1 to some teams out there) together with the mission statement of FIRST is what makes this program great.

I'm really curious about the tactics that you saw and what upset you about them. This is probably something worth discussing so other teams can learn from your experiences.

[jtrv]

Originally Posted by Karthik

I regret doubting you, Mr. Karthik.

Originally Posted by thatprogrammer

I think 1114 did a bit better than you expected

Yeah, I was wrong, and I know I was. I used a prediction model for this, and this was the first iteration and its first attempt at guessing results. Obviously, it needs some adjustments, and I didn't expect it to get anything right the first time.

Plus, some others made some just as bold predictions...

[ArthurF]

Originally Posted by Karthik

I'm really curious about the tactics that you saw and what upset you about them. This is probably something worth discussing so other teams can learn from your experiences.

I have probably already crossed the line here so I would rather keep this 'intimate observation' to myself.
But it goes among the slightly modified version of : "if you can't beat them then join them". Having 4 teams on alliance gives you ability to take advantage of the above statement to the extends previously not realized by me.

[ASD20]

Originally Posted by ArthurF

I have probably already crossed the line here so I would rather keep this 'intimate observation' to myself.
But it goes among the slightly modified version of : "if you can't beat them then join them". Having 4 teams on alliance gives you ability to take advantage of the above statement to the extends previously not realized by me.

You should not name specific teams, but please explain in less cryptic way.

[ArthurF]

Originally Posted by ASD20

You should not name specific teams, but please explain in less cryptic way.

Can't be less cryptic because people are already 'correcting me' for using team names. Looks like this forum is for 'happy thoughts' only. Let it be this way then.
Just for the record ... I have nothing against FRC nor IRI.

I disagreed with someones statement of the strategy and apparently it is not allowed here. Please be reassured that you will not hear from me again.

[Ty Tremblay]

Originally Posted by ArthurF

Can't be less cryptic because people are already 'correcting me' for using team names. Looks like this forum is for 'happy thoughts' only. Let it be this way then.
Just for the record ... I have nothing against FRC nor IRI.

I disagreed with someones statement of the strategy and apparently it is not allowed here. Please be reassured that you will not hear from me again.

The people saying its not allowed are wrong, but it's not like you had to listen to them in the first place. They're on the other side of the internet.