paper: 2010 Team 1114 Championship Scouting Database

[kjolana1124]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

What's better? A team who was good but didn't improve much from event to event? Or a team who was not so good at their first event but was much better at their second?

For the latter, do you think the slope can stay steep? Or is this one of those tortoise/hare situations?

I see it almost like an exponential curve. Teams that tend to do better over the course of a few events have a habit of leveling off. Whether it be from getting too sure of yourself, falling into a pattern, or just reaching your peak a little too soon, they eventually begin to stabilize. Either that, or in the effort to keep improving they end up becoming weaker.

Continuous improvement =/= continuous work. Sometimes all a team needs is a better mindset between competitions, not a better robot.