paper: FIRST Championship History Results

[Jim Zondag]

Thanks for the updates. I reposted this file with a couple of updates to the 2009 tab. In 2009, we had someone record all the alliance pairings, but I couldn't ever find the notebook they were written in when we got back from Atlanta. I thought I had all the corrections when I posted this last year, but perhaps not.

This is one of my biggest beefs with FIRST's data: the draft order is very important but is not presented anywhere in the official data. Bizarre.

Adam, the weighted average is really just a guess. Obviously history matters in overall team quality assessments, but stuff that happened 10 years ago is clearly much less relevant than what happened this year. The weighted average uses a 2/3 (66.7%) derating for each year. Thus if you got 50 points this year, it would still be worth 33 point next year, 22 points the year after that, etc. More details on the "Notes" tab. It will help boost your score way up if you do good things consecutively (like say, winning the Championship twice in a row ). Kind of like bowling.

Why 66.7%? It seems about right based on my judgement, 50% seems too low, but this is a hard thing to prove mathematically.

In 67's case, you had 161 points acculated last year, the highest ever, which are now worth 107 (-54) this year, plus 25 more this year = 132.
217, while outperforming last year, still lost a little ground due to continued derating of their 2008 & 2009 peak data.
The best score possible if you use this system is 198, but you would need to be world champion for 10 years straight to achieve this.

If anyone wants to play around with this, just change the value in cell Z1 on tab "11 year history results" and resort the results. Higher makes the totals linger longer, small makes them decay faster. Fun with math.

Regardless, there is no doubt that the small group of teams at the top are the very best in the world. Congrats to you all!