(Seemingly) Irrational alliance selection decisions?

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Dominick Ferone

I think a combination of things helped.
Modified the shooter a bit, but more being confident in our own strategy.
When we went into eliminations for NYC we used our strategies which worked well in our favor. We continued on the trend through SBPLI.
The last couple years, the teams I have been on haven't had the best robots for sure. But it's not always about having the best bot as it is playing your alliance effectively.

It helped true the next year as rookies we used our alliance to the most of its potential and finished second, while being a new team with no experience and being a defensive bot.

I'll be a bit blunt here- 5030 did not "finish second" at TVR 2014, you seeded second. And while it's true that playing defense was probably one of the things your robot did better, that was only because it completely lacked scoring capabilities.

I'd argue that your seeding second was more due to consistently being paired with teams like 1126, 3015, 2228, 1511, 3003, 870, 3044, 20, 4203, and 174 more than it was due to your tremendous strategic chops. Being unable to possess a ball in 2014 made most strategies other than defense difficult, and put elimination alliances at a major disadvantage - being unable to complete three assist cycles.

5030 the next two years was far better, and while your robots failed to look like beautiful powdercoated creations, they did have tremendous value when playing to your strengths.

-----------------------

On the topic of irrational alliance selections, I'd argue that alliance selections are far more complicated than most people think, and that some teams might be looking at risk/reward, different strategies, and perhaps pick irrationally without thinking about how to actually win the event sometimes.