Scoring Predictions Anyone?

[ALIBI]

The Suffield Shakedown 2008 scores are out. The winning alliances averaged 36 points and the losing alliances averaged 16 points. The day high was 76 points. The low match was 0 to 4 (Qualifications Match 16). The highest total score was 76-42 for 118 points (Semis 2, Match 2).

[coldfusion1279]

The game will depend on how the refs call it (I know I know, thats the way it is every year right?) But this year seems different for a couple reasons. The rules are also a bit foggy on the "defending against a hurdle" front. Theres also this new idea of "signal to pass"... Will teams really immediately allow an opposing robot to whiz by and pile on the points?

Who knows... hopefully yes since it is the spirit of the game, but I have seen crazier things. I have faith in the refs tho, they always seem to get it right in the end...

Also, it seems like there wont be as many blowouts this year since theres less emphasis on defense and all you have to do to score is keep driving! Matches will be close and I think it will be a good year for some of these new 2000+ teams to get into the Saturday afternoon matches.

[Wayne C.]

Originally Posted by Wayne C.

I predict that scores will highly reflect the awarding of penalties by the referees and we might see that to the extent it was in 2005 with the tetras. Many rounds will have that pause at the end to see how many points will be deducted and whether it swings the match.



WC

Now at the end of week 2 the above is ( once again) apparently the case. In addition, scoring is inconsistent, hard to follow and simply not working.

Sorry- but this game "inhales audibly" in general....

How about a game where you can see the score in the end without a referee interpretation?

IMHO

WC

[XXShadowXX]

well my team just got back from the kettering rookie pilot.


we were number 1 comming out of qualifaction and our average was 26.4 points per match, but some teams were in the 27,and 28 points per match. There are rookies mind you so i would not be surprized to see teams getting 30-35 points per match.

And in hybrid, well hybrid wasn't great most teams only got 4... the best was 8. But with our new hybrid code we can score 16 so i can see some teams getting 20, or 24.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by jgannon

There are going to be some amazing robots this year, and I'm prepared to have my mind blown. That being said, let's put together a spectacular hypothetical alliance and do the math. (It's all about the math, right?)

Take a fast lap bot like 148, and two beastly hurdlers. Let's say that they can manage to knock down both balls in hybrid and cross twelve lines (roughly a lap each... odds are that one will go farther, and another will get hung up on another robot). They start driver control with 64 points. Despite the field congestion, 148 clocks a lap every ten seconds, netting them 24 points. The other two bots score a remarkable eleven hurdles and crosses... and they finish with 198 points. This would require an unbelievable alignment of the cosmos just to score that many points. On top of that, as these bots are hurtling around the field, they'd better hope they don't rear-end somebody hurdling for the other alliance, or they're out another ten points.

In any case, much like last year, the record score will not be set at IRI or at the championship... it will be set in qualifying at the regional level, with a heavily stacked alliance against a group of absent or broken bots. 190+ is feasible, once. 200+? I'll eat my hat.

I agree- I did some similar math, and determined that there is a chance of a score between 190-200, but only an exceptionally played match, where everything goes as planned among three amazing robots. The other math I did (before regionals started) said that a really well played match was around 110, and that average would be 60-ish. Those predictions were right, so that makes me think that 250+ is incredibly unlikely.

[Wayne TenBrink]

Here are some scoring statistics for the first two weeks. This includes all regionals. The median and average scores are very close this year.

Median winning score (qualifying matches): 45
Median losing score (qualifying matches): 20
Median high score (qualifying matches): 97

Median winning score (eliminations): 73
Median losing score (eliminations): 43


Here is a crude look at the role experience plays. It is based on team number.
Median Team Number in attendance: 1134
Median Team Number to make eliminations: 1190
This statistic varied a lot.

I find it interesting that the median "experience" of the teams that made it to the elimination rounds is lower than the overall median experience at the event in general. That's encouraging to those of us on young teams!

[Guy Davidson]

If you're doing stats on those numbers, care to publish some of the other interesting numbers? average, std. dev., etc.?

Now I'm tempted to do some stats by myself. I probably will, once I have time

[Mageofdancingdr]

I don't know if it's possible, but can we also get a look at the average scoring gap between the losing and winning teams?

[Wayne TenBrink]

I'll give this a try (cut & paste from a spreadsheet) and see if the columns line up.

Here are summary results for each regional. I looked at the median and average, but they were almost always within one point (unlike last year, where the average was much higher than the median due to a few blowout scores). I didn't look at standard deviation. I got the raw data from the FIRST site.

Med Win Q = Median score of the winning alliance in qualifying matches
Med Lose Q = Same, except for losing alliance
Max Qual = Maximum alliance score in qualifying matches
Med Win E = Median score of the winning team in elimination matches
Med Lose E = Same, except for losing alliance
Med Tm Q = Median team number in all qualifying matches
Med Tm E = Median team number of the 24 teams in the elimination matches

Event Week Med Win Q Med Lose Q Max Qual Med Win E Med Lose E Med Tm Q Med Tm E
Midwest 1 49 20 112 71 43 1650 1179
Granite 1 53 30 92 82 52 613 780
NJ 1 42 20 100 74 64 1089 521
St. L 1 56 26 94 82 60 1178 1096
Oregon 1 40 16 78 56 38 1540 1483
FLR 2 58 34 118 81 51 703 371
KC 2 40 18 76 44 36 1827 1960
VCU 2 41 17 122 54 42 762 1200
AZ 2 36 12 82 55 38 1726 1563
SD 2 48 21 120 87 41 981 1283


Summary 45 20 97 72.5 42.5 1133.5 1189.5

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

I'll give this a try (cut & paste from a spreadsheet) and see if the columns line up.

Here are summary results for each regional. I looked at the median and average, but they were almost always within one point (unlike last year, where the average was much higher than the median due to a few blowout scores). I didn't look at standard deviation. I got the raw data from the FIRST site.

Med Win Q = Median score of the winning alliance in qualifying matches
Med Lose Q = Same, except for losing alliance
Max Qual = Maximum alliance score in qualifying matches
Med Win E = Median score of the winning team in elimination matches
Med Lose E = Same, except for losing alliance
Med Tm Q = Median team number in all qualifying matches
Med Tm E = Median team number of the 24 teams in the elimination matches

Event	Week	MedWinQ	MedLosQ	MaxQual	MedWinE	MedLosE	MedTmQ	MedTmE
Midwest	1	49	20	112	71	43	1650	1179
Granite	1	53	30	92	82	52	613	780
NJ	1	42	20	100	74	64	1089	521
St. L	1	56	26	94	82	60	1178	1096
Oregon	1	40	16	78	56	38	1540	1483
FLR	2	58	34	118	81	51	703	371
KC	2	40	18	76	44	36	1827	1960
VCU	2	41	17	122	54	42	762	1200
AZ	2	36	12	82	55	38	1726	1563
SD	2	48	21	120	87	41	981	1283


Summary		45	20	97	72.5	42.5	1133.5	1189.5

Howzzat? By inserting {code} and {/code} tags, and removing a couple characters in the titles, I got them to line up. Thanks for compiling this.