White Paper Discuss: Karthik's Championship Event Data

[J Flex 188]

Whoa now, like Karthik said already, if a team doesnt like how the awards or accolades factor in, they can always change the values of the statistics. This spreadsheet isnt punishing anyone, its only meant as a tool to help. As such, no one is obligated to use it, or believe in its data management system. 188 is ranked pretty low in Archimedes, but that cant be helped. I realise the situation is a little bit different with your robot actually winning a regional and all, but lets try to keep in mind that this is a tool and not an official ranking of the robots coming to the event. Im sure everyone will have an ace or two up their sleeve

[10intheCrunch]

Originally Posted by ThirdRide

True, the third robot is not always as strong as the first two. BUT, that is already reflected in the qualification matches. Our point total after the qualification matches was lower than our partners. There is no reason why we should be punished again for something unrelated. We are being punished in our winning the regional for our average performance in the qualification matches. One had nothing to do with the other and that should be reflected in the point system.

Remember what rourke said about the SCAM ratings: the name was intentionally chosen to make sure few people take it seriously. These statistics are the same way: helpful in some ways for determining, roughly, what teams did well at regionals, but not a value judgment of your robot or your team. You aren't being punished for anything, and teams aren't being rewarded for anything; it's just a number. Go in and mess with the spreadsheet on the regional specific pages to change the scores, and adjust it until you feel it's right, then use it for your scouting purposes.

[Documentor]

Just a quick note, Team 967 won and Team 16 have the awards swapped on the spreadsheet (impressive work, btw). We, Team 967, were awarded teh GM ID and BBS teh Driving Tomorrow's Tech. Not that is it matters much, but just a note of clarity. Sadly, out alliance partners are not in out division....

[10intheCrunch]

Ummm, OK I was looking over it again, and...are you sure you got the standard deviations right? There are several SDs that are greater than the mean score, which seems to ring wrong with me (I haven't taken stats but +- 1 SD is about 2/3 of the data, right?). Did you forget to square root on some of them?

Still very impressive.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by 10intheCrunch

Ummm, OK I was looking over it again, and...are you sure you got the standard deviations right? There are several SDs that are greater than the mean score, which seems to ring wrong with me (I haven't taken stats but +- 1 SD is about 2/3 of the data, right?).

The standard deviation is only 2/3 of the data when the data is gaussian (also called normal or bell shaped curve). The score's of most team's matches is no where near a bell shaped curve, and so that doesn't hold. I checked the numbers for team 970 at OH, which was one of the teams where the standard deviation was higher then the mean, and the calculations were correct.

(standard deviation)^2 = (sum(xn - mean)^2)/(n-1)

You can use this webpage to do the calculations for you: http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/...NROW_form.html and this page has explanations of a bunch of different statistical measurments: http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/descriptive2.html

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by 10intheCrunch

Ummm, OK I was looking over it again, and...are you sure you got the standard deviations right? There are several SDs that are greater than the mean score, which seems to ring wrong with me (I haven't taken stats but +- 1 SD is about 2/3 of the data, right?). Did you forget to square root on some of them?

Still very impressive.

I just used Excel's standard deviation function. I did a spot check of about 15 entries, and they looked alright. If you find any specific entries that are wrong, let me know.