paper: 2006 frc195 Statistical Team Analyzer

[Spindash54]

Hey, this looks amazing. One little thing though.

Our team is only mentioned in the Team Data center, but not the Raw, Curie Rank, or Interface.

I look foward to using this data down at the championship.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by Spindash54

Hey, this looks amazing. One little thing though.

Our team is only mentioned in the Team Data center, but not the Raw, Curie Rank, or Interface.

I look foward to using this data down at the championship.

Ahh.

I used the original division lists which did not include the teams who were pending. (103 for example)

I'll make sure to add these teams to the database tomorrow. If anyone else sees any errors, please post them here.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I took about 3 hours today manually adding in match data from UTC based on our scouting records.

Revision 2 is available on the download page for this paper. Just click the link in the first post.


Problems solved:

• The UTC data has been added to the overall database, and UTC only teams have been incorporated into their division listings
• Division team listings have been updated to include teams who were "pending"

Adding the UTC info has had a small influence on the rankings. Some teams moved around, and some were added in high on the ranks (top 15 - 20,195)

Enjoy!

[Joel J]

Hi.. Can I get that UTC data!?

[Ben Piecuch]

Geez, thanks Tom! (please note some sarcasm...) We, team 228, went from one of the mysterious unrated Curie team to a -4.7 average score. Ouch!

Just to let all the Curie scouts know, we did not have a working ball delivery system for UTC. And therefore, were only able to shot about 2 balls a match before the whole thing jammed. We've designed and tested a fix for the problem, and will hopefully have it installed and working by mid-Thursday. Please stop by our pits to say hi, and to take a look at the new system. Best of luck to all the teams!

BEN

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by Ben Piecuch

Geez, thanks Tom! (please note some sarcasm...) We, team 228, went from one of the mysterious unrated Curie team to a -4.7 average score. Ouch!

Just to let all the Curie scouts know, we did not have a working ball delivery system for UTC. And therefore, were only able to shot about 2 balls a match before the whole thing jammed. We've designed and tested a fix for the problem, and will hopefully have it installed and working by mid-Thursday. Please stop by our pits to say hi, and to take a look at the new system. Best of luck to all the teams!

BEN

Sorry Ben

I think I know the source of your problem. Since our scouting team packed up after Friday's matches, the UTC data doesn't include your last 2-3 matches. These were probably the matches you did well in, and how you ended up with your #10 rank.

And yes, 228 has a great bot this year. They had some problems with their shooter early on, but were able to pull off some good plays by the end of UTC. I expect nothing less than perfection with their new fix.

[sw293]

Interesting & good job. I have a couple of small questions:

Why should the average scale score at each regional be zero? It seems that this would penalize teams that attended stronger regionals when comparing scores across regionals.

Also, did you try scaling the scores once over the entire season, i.e. treating the entire FIRST season as one regional and scaling the scores based on that? (I realize there are plenty of reasons for not doing this).

[AndyB]

you are my hero. amazing job!

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Revision 3:

Lil' Lavery fixed the event history section for St. Louis, SoCal, and Peachtree.

[DanDon]

Hey Tom,

I don't mean to ask for more work from you, you did an awesome job already, but is there any way for you to make a sheet with the teams ranked in divisions based on highest scaled score?

If not, its no biggy,

[Compnerd]

Are you going to do a 2007 analyzer?

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by Compnerd

Are you going to do a 2007 analyzer?

Probably. It depends on the match data that FIRST archives. Without a good sample size, the data is worthless.