Galileo Stats

[Lil' Lavery]

I'm not sure if these are correct. I'm confident that 116 scored 19 ringers and 1 keeper on Friday alone, and 6 more ringers (and another keeper) during our two qualification matches Saturday morning, totaling 25 ringers and 2 keepers. I'm not sure our elimination round totals.

[Jeffrafa]

I also question some of these numbers. Re-watching video of our team, we managed 31 ringers in our six friday matches, and an additional 4 on our only saturday morning match. Thus totaling 35 ringers over 7 matches - at an average 5 ringers per match in qualifying for 1425.

Also, I don't know specifically which teams, but a number of teams played 8 matches to fill the schedule. However the 8th match didn't count in rankings - I don't know if that was accounted for at all in the above data. If not it would negatively skew the rest of us with only 7 matches.

- Jeff

[falconmaster]

Here is the data from The Digitally Enhanced Scouting System, DESS. You can download the file complete with raw data, summaries and graphs. We will be working with our mentor's company, Inventivity, to produce these for teams that want to buy the system. Enjoy!!
http://www.phxhs.k12.az.us/education...67&pagecat=322

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by falconmaster

Here is the data from The Digitally Enhanced Scouting System, DESS. You can download the file complete with raw data, summaries and graphs. We will be working with our mentor's company, Inventivity, to produce these for teams that want to buy the system. Enjoy!!
http://www.phxhs.k12.az.us/education...67&pagecat=322

This is also slightly incorrect. It is missing data for 116 for match 5, and has some incorrect data in other matches. Regardless, this is a very impressive system, and that graph is actually really interesting. Good luck in enhancing this service in the future!

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

This is also slightly incorrect. It is missing data for 116 for match 5, and has some incorrect data in other matches. Regardless, this is a very impressive system, and that graph is actually really interesting. Good luck in enhancing this service in the future!

You're quick!! First of all, thanks for all the kind words you said about us in the past, and yes you are correct, we missed some matches due to a lunch error. What data do you have to compare with that you caught this?

Also we are bummed that there are no honorable mentions this year. We were hoping that they would be listed when we found out we did not wins chairman's. Do you have any insight on that.

Also if you are interested in joining another team, we would love to have you.

Take care!!

[65_Xero_Huskie]

Hmm..Those stats seem sorta right, but i coulda swore we put up more than 19.
I think we had maybe 15 in the elims alone. But I still like the stats. Thanks Penguins, Your still one of my favs.

[mateus]

its very nice but.. i believe it has some little errors... a great example :it says that my team made an offensive auto, and scored tubes... but we don`t even have an arm... we were a defensive ramp bot...

[falconmaster]

I guess that would be human error, sorry about that, does the rest of it seam accurate?

[triggerhappy336]

The tube's scored for 2228 is way off. We scored at least double what is listed for us.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by falconmaster

You're quick!! First of all, thanks for all the kind words you said about us in the past, and yes you are correct, we missed some matches due to a lunch error. What data do you have to compare with that you caught this?

Also we are bummed that there are no honorable mentions this year. We were hoping that they would be listed when we found out we did not wins chairman's. Do you have any insight on that.

Also if you are interested in joining another team, we would love to have you.

I'm comparing the data to my memory (supported by video) of the event. We scored between 26-29 tubes in the qualification rounds (counting 2 keepers), for an average of around 4 per match. Your data has us listed at 2.83/match. Granted, your data is probably much closer than our scouts data of other teams (which was largely incomplete and incorrect), and no system will ever be perfect. While we designed a spreadsheet for rapid input from our scouting sheets, most of our information is still in those sheets and not digitized, so I can't share our data.
As for the honorable mentions, that was certainly annoying we couldn't find out who came close this year. As for a new team, sorry, but wrong side of the country.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

Here are the stats we kept for Galileo.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/1987

Let me know what you think.