Where do I ask for unicorns, I mean changes to the official stats?

[plnyyanks]

There's some great feedback in this thread! One reason we've been hesitant to modify the ranking display too much in TBA is that we don't want to cause any confusion about which columns are "official" and which ones aren't. However, I definitely agree that there are things we can tweak to make the display much more informative (we just have to clearly differentiate which numbers come from directly from FMS and which don't)

I think we can add a notion of "derived columns" to the rankings display on desktop: we can show a "match difference" outlining how many matches away from the max each team is (so it would show {-- (even), -1, -2, ...}). This could go in parentheses after the official "played" column. And we can also add RP/match.

This all gets a little trickier on mobile, because information density is hard.

If anyone would like to help build this for TBA, let me know and I'll help you get started! I've filed an issue to track the feature

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by plnyyanks

I think we can add a notion of "derived columns" to the rankings display on desktop: we can show a "match difference" outlining how many matches away from the max each team is (so it would show {-- (even), -1, -2, ...}). This could go in parentheses after the official "played" column. And we can also add RP/match.

This all gets a little trickier on mobile, because information density is hard.

If anyone would like to help build this for TBA, let me know and I'll help you get started! I've filed an issue to track the feature

That's awesome. Thanks Phil! My web programming skills are not up to the task myself, but I hope someone rises to the challenge. If the derived column(s) prove useful, we will have a clear example to show FIRST HQ to request an official change.

[ctt956]

What if there were two rankings? One would be the current ranking system, while the other would be teams ranked by how much they score in matches? It could just be based on their average score/alliance contribution in the matches they've played.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by ctt956

What if there were two rankings? One would be the current ranking system, while the other would be teams ranked by how much they score in matches? It could just be based on their average score/alliance contribution in the matches they've played.

So making OPR/CCWM an official thing?

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by CalTran

So making OPR/CCWM an official thing?

OPR estimates a team's own contribution, minimizes the residual in match scores, and relates to the point totals on TBA by a linear transformation. But not quite the same thing.

FIRST regularly reports the sum of your alliance scores across your matches, broken down by area (auto, different ways to score in teleop), though this is not normalized by matches played. However, this is not typically used for ranking (with the notable exception of 2015). Even as a tie breaker, the component scores are used (usually auto first) rather than a total.

[ctt956]

Originally Posted by CalTran

So making OPR/CCWM an official thing?

In a way, but making it more accurate, and sort of a combo of OPR and DPR, so if a robot played defense, that team's ranking/contribution could be calculated by the number of points they stopped the opposing alliance from scoring. Both could be used in one match if a team scored for their own alliance and also played defense.

[ASD20]

Originally Posted by ctt956

What if there were two rankings? One would be the current ranking system, while the other would be teams ranked by how much they score in matches? It could just be based on their average score/alliance contribution in the matches they've played.

For what purpose? To try to estimate what a teams ranking will be or to try to assess how good teams are? If it's the latter, TBA already as OPR somewhere for the top n teams. If it's the former, OPR (or whatever modified version you like) has absolutely no correlation to the current ranking system. It will also never become an official stat, let alone ranking method, by FIRST because it completely goes against what FIRST believes in.

[OccamzRazor]

Yeah the OPR/DPR/"any Rating" does not correlate to ranking for many FRC games at all and it makes it useless from year to year usage. Especially games like 2015 and 2001 where your alliance or average scores come into play or any games like 2012 where you have coopertition considerations.

Any adjustments to how it is presented visually I think will take away most of the confusion associated with how your ranking will swoop after a good win on your last match in a situation where the rankings are really close and nobody else has played their last match.

Then, you get to watch in awe as your rank dips until everyone has played that last game. I have seen kids celebrate first place for one moment and then get immensely upset 5 minutes later at being 9th seed suddenly at the end. Those of us who are accustomed to it don't see the problem but for people new to FRC it is confusing and often upsetting to the point it has probably ruined some people's experience. It also makes scouting more difficult and more important for the draft order.

No amount of teaching or training is going to necessarily fix that confusion so I am open to hearing more suggestions.

[Brian Maher]

Being able to view RP/match is something I've wanted to be able to do for a while, so I decided to take action on it.

On The Blue Alliance, I implemented ranking points per match as an additional column in the rankings for all years 2007 - 2016 (except 2015, which already ranks using an average). It may take up to 24 hours for the update to appear on all events. Here is an example if you'd like to see it. I hope this helps!

[plnyyanks]

Originally Posted by BMSOTM

Being able to view RP/match is something I've wanted to be able to do for a while, so I decided to take action on it.

On The Blue Alliance, I implemented ranking points per match as an additional column in the rankings for all years 2007 - 2016 (except 2015, which already ranks using an average). It may take up to 24 hours for the update to appear on all events. Here is an example if you'd like to see it. I hope this helps!

TBA wouldn't be a thing if it weren't for dedicated members of the community who helped build it - thanks Brian!