Smart team vs. Good Team

[Ginger Power]

Alright so good teams are typically smart teams, however, hear me out. Who would typically win a match, a smart team or a good team? In this scenario by a smart team I mean a team with a weaker robot but knows the game inside and out and plays their strengths well. By a good team in this scenario I am referring to a team with a more competitive robot but isn't as well versed in the rules and doesn't play the game at max efficiency.

I believe the smart team will win every time. The smart team will be able to coordinate an alliance effectively which is vital to Aerial Assist. The smart team will incorporate the best possible strategy possible during quals regardless of who they are paired with. The good team will be more dependent on having good teams with them in quals, and that comes down to luck.

So who wins, the smart team, or the good team?

[ksafin]

You can't ask a question like this. It isn't black or white or clear cut like this.

The answer to the question is entirely scenario-specific.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by ksafin

You can't ask a question like this. It isn't black or white or clear cut like this.

The answer to the question is entirely scenario-specific.

By setting up this hypothetical scenario and asking who would win I am really looking for people to take the question at face value and dig deep into it. It obviously isn't clear cut. . . It's an opinion that an individual forms and defends to the best of their ability. If all questions had a black and white answer, debates would be no fun and critical thinking wouldn't be needed. I figured what better place to pose a hypothetical question about robots than Chief Delphi. It isn't supposed to be clear cut. . . I'm looking to see a debate about a topic which I'm interested.

[ksafin]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

By setting up this hypothetical scenario and asking who would win I am really looking for people to take the question at face value and dig deep into it. It obviously isn't clear cut. . . It's an opinion that an individual forms and defends to the best of their ability. If all questions had a black and white answer, debates would be no fun and critical thinking wouldn't be needed. I figured what better place to pose a hypothetical question about robots than Chief Delphi. It isn't supposed to be clear cut. . . I'm looking to see a debate about a topic which I'm interested.

I don't think you can have one.
Every bit of this question depends on the circumstance. It depends how "smart" the smart team is, how "good" the good team is, how "smart" and "good" the partners are, etc. There's too many dynamics that if you condense it down into any scenario where you can squeeze out an answer, it'd be a scenario overridden with so many hypotheticals that it'd be invalid by the point.

[cadandcookies]

Generally, a smart team. A "good team" with a "good robot" that isn't as familiar with the game is liable to rack up penalties and be out of touch with common and uncommon strategies.

That being said, as the OP points out, most "good teams" with good robots are also smart about how they approach the game and competition. This is why we know them as good teams.

Of course, this all depends on your definition of a "good team"-- if by good team, you mean competitive, then we're basically arguing if a team that is by definition good at the game is going to a team that is, again, by definition, nebulously "smart" about their approach. If, on the other, hand, by a "good team," you mean a team that focuses on the Chairman's Award, then their on-field performance is relatively random taken as a whole (I wish I had a statistic on this-- someone either back me up or disprove me here). Then, the smart team wins.

Ultimately the issue is that the terms aren't really well defined and they aren't even mutually exclusive.

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Ultimately the issue is that the terms aren't really well defined and they aren't even mutually exclusive.

Yup. We can't debate this.

But we can say that teams with robots that "do" things, such as throw the ball full court, are not necessarily going to win over teams that have a one point kiss-passing bot and a good bit of drive practice and strategy. And I sure hope there's not much debate about that.

[Jeffy]

I'm inclined to think a good team can be outsmarted, but I couldn't tell for sure.
I can assure you this though, being a smart team will make you perform better no matter what kind of robot capabilities you have.
And in this game, A LOT better.

[Alan Anderson]

I've been looking for the source of this quote, but I've given up trying to find it. Someone once said that a good robot with a bad drive team can lose, and a bad robot with a good drive team can win...but a good robot with a good drive team can dominate.

[Mr V]

Average robots playing smart can take down good or great robots who aren't playing smart. I've seen it play out that way more than once so far this season.

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by ginger power

Who would typically win a match, a smart team or a good team? In this scenario by a smart team I mean a team with a weaker robot but knows the game inside and out and plays their strengths well.

Shouldn't be too hard to figure out after 3 weeks of regionals. Look at the winners. Are they predominately teams with good robots, or "smart" teams with less capable robots?

Originally Posted by mrnoble

But we can say that teams with robots that "do" things, such as throw the ball full court, are not necessarily going to win over teams that have a one point kiss-passing bot and a good bit of drive practice and strategy. And I sure hope there's not much debate about that.

“The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.” - Damon Runyon

[Adam Freeman]

Show me a "good team" that isn't a "smart team" in FRC.

For this game, one individual robot machine can only do some to help an alliance. A really good scorer still needs someone to pass to it to get the extra points for assists. A really good passer still needs someone to score for it.

With that being said, I think your hypothetical question should be a "smart team" v. a "good robot".

In that case, the "smart team" will win everytime. They will put their alliance partners in a position to help best enhance each teams strengths, while reducing their opportunities to expose their weaknesses.

A team with a good robot, that isn't very smart will play to their own strengths, without thinking about what their alliance partners strengths/weaknesses.

By the time Championships come around, every good machine (Top25?) will be able to execute a score/pass/truss action as well as the next one. This game will really come down to which alliance best utilizes it's entire alliances strengths and capitalizes on the other teams weaknesses.

Execution is always important, but getting the ENTIRE alliance to execute perfectly, with one purpose, will be what it takes to win this year.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

Shouldn't be too hard to figure out after 3 weeks of regionals. Look at the winners. Are they predominately teams with good robots, or "smart" teams with less capable robots?

I have seen multiple very good robots try to score TRUSS points with their missed autonomous balls...in the quarter-final rounds. Said teams did not make it into the semi finals.

In answer to your question, I have yet to see a team that is not "smart" win a regional.

Assuming exclusivity, smart team beats good robot, no question.

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by inkling16

In answer to your question, I have yet to see a team that is not "smart" win a regional.

Okay, have you seen a team without a "good" robot win a regional?

Originally Posted by inkling16

Assuming exclusivity, smart team beats good robot, no question.

Still a big question. All the regionals that I'm aware of have gone to teams with "good" robots, despite smarter play by many teams with less capable robots.

Good robots + decent play > bad robots + smart play

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Average robots playing smart can take down good or great robots who aren't playing smart. I've seen it play out that way more than once so far this season.

I would agree. We won our regional last week, but our toughest match was against 3 robots that played defense extremely well and shut down our alleys to the goal. They just couldn't quite make up the deficit from the auto period. And I saw a regional final where a smart alliance lost to an excellent robot-led alliance only due to penalties.

Alliance cooperation is supreme this year, so be ready to subsume your individual interests to those of the alliance. That also means the top teams must figure out how to use all of their alliance members most effectively.

[wireties]

This is an interesting topic but my experience is that good teams are nearly always smart. A team "good" enough to build a great machine started out "smart" enough to cover their bases, raise money, recruit mentors, have a complete program etc. All the "good" teams I know have "smart" strategy and scouting efforts.

So interesting query but impossible to debate (in my humble opinion)...