Highest ranked team not picked?

[jnicho15]

Originally Posted by lovelj

On the inverse, what was the lowest ranked team picked first?

Could be 548. We were ranked 48th in Tesla (10th in OPR) and were the first pick of the fifth alliance.

[sdangelo]

Originally Posted by jnicho15

Could be 548. We were ranked 48th in Tesla (10th in OPR) and were the first pick of the fifth alliance.

Oh, I thought this was about first picks overall. For first pick by any alliance, 3098 was the first pick of the 8th alliance on Archimedes and was seeded 53rd. Close second was 4920 on Hopper, also first pick of the 8th alliance, seeded 52nd.

[lovelj]

Originally Posted by jnicho15

Could be 548. We were ranked 48th in Tesla (10th in OPR) and were the first pick of the fifth alliance.

Likely. I just ran Archimedes and Carson. 3098 was 53rd and was 1st pick of 8th alliance in Archimedes. 868 was 42nd and 1st pick of 6th alliance in Carson. Our team 3824, was ranked 47 and was 1st pick of 8th alliance.

In a nutshell, was ranking a poor metric of performance this year, more so than other years? I don't recall so many low raked teams being picked so early compared to prior years. What was it about this year's game that skewed ranking from individual performance?

[jamesmcip]

Originally Posted by lovelj

In a nutshell, was ranking a poor metric of performance this year, more so than other years? I don't recall so many low raked teams being picked so early compared to prior years. What was it about this year's game that skewed ranking from individual performance?

This year definitely seemed like many great teams seeded extremely low for their ability. If your team is stuck with a dead robot (which occurred far more often this year), then you are pretty much screwed for the capture and it can make breaching difficult if they are right on a defense. Losing just a few ranking points due to some unlucky events can be the difference from seeding top 8 to seeding bottom 20.

This year at our first event for the first day we were only with one other functioning robot (or even once by ourselves) more often than we were with 2 working robots capable of at least challenging the tower.

I remember in Boston team 125 suffered from a lot of issues very early on and got rather unlucky so they seeded 28th, however they were a first pick of the second alliance and went on the be finalists at the event.

[Whatever]

The delta between 20th and 55th was roughly 5 to 8 RP.
That's two unfortunate matches.

[Brian Maher]

Originally Posted by lovelj

In a nutshell, was ranking a poor metric of performance this year, more so than other years? I don't recall so many low raked teams being picked so early compared to prior years. What was it about this year's game that skewed ranking from individual performance?

I may have had bad luck, but this season I noticed many more robots losing communication and browning out. I believe this plays a big role in this ranking phenomenon. In addition to a win being much harder to attain with two robots, the ranking point from a capture can almost impossible to obtain, depending on where the robot fails (unless you have the crazy pushing power of 25).

On Archimedes, one of our driver's controllers failed during our match with 1986 and 4183, rendering us immobile for the entirety of teleop. While they and our other partner still won us the match, we could not complete a capture. With that extra RP, 1986 would be ranked 13th rather than 16th and 4183 would be 25th instead of 29th. These are small differences for non-picking teams at a 7 team event, but they reflect the impact of failing partners.

On the flip side, one of our partners was a no-show and another lost comms at the beginning of the match. We lost both matches by less than ten points, and even with towers weakened to 0, could not capture. Those almost four RP matches became 1 RP matches. This is a six ranking point difference, which on Archimedes was the difference between ranking 20th and 50th, 10th and 34th, or 1st and 10th.


I've shared 1257's anecdote about not picking based on ranked before. I've quoted it below:

Originally Posted by BMSOTM

The issue with using qualification rank to assess team strength is that strength of schedule and luck with alliance partners can bias results. Just last weekend, 1257 seeded 52nd of 60 teams at MAR CMP. We averaged of five low goals in a match, and maximum of seven, but had bad luck in quals with alliance partners losing comms and such. 225 (who told me their scouting does not consider qualification rank) and 341 picked us for what we could do, and we won the event.

[EricH]

You know, if you're going to go with the highest ranked team that isn't picked, you gotta go with the #1 seed. They're NEVER picked.



Primarily because nobody's in position to try to pick them before they pick someone...

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by lovelj

Likely. I just ran Archimedes and Carson. 3098 was 53rd and was 1st pick of 8th alliance in Archimedes. 868 was 42nd and 1st pick of 6th alliance in Carson. Our team 3824, was ranked 47 and was 1st pick of 8th alliance.

In a nutshell, was ranking a poor metric of performance this year, more so than other years? I don't recall so many low raked teams being picked so early compared to prior years. What was it about this year's game that skewed ranking from individual performance?

1983 was ranked 40th on Curie, and was the fist pick of the No. 2 alliance (and they talked their way out of being the first overall pick as the combination would not have been high scoring enough.)

[saikiranra]

Originally Posted by lovelj

On the inverse, what was the lowest ranked team picked first?

We were ranked 32 on Newton and were the first pick of 217.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by saikiranra

We were ranked 32 on Newton and were the first pick of 217.

Results indicate that was a pretty good pick. 217 is good at scouting.

16 seeded 42nd (OPR Rank 13), and 125 seeded 33rd (OPR Rank 17) -- both were picked before you were. Teams that do a good job of scouting will generally make pick lists based on their own data, ignoring seed. OPR is more useful than seed, but not a substitute for good scouting.

Good scouting is much harder to do than most teams appreciate. My own team has worked very hard at scouting this year, and we think it is still one of our top opportunities to improve. BTW, several Newton teams were higher on our pick list than they were in the OPR rankings. Your team was one of them.

Back to the original poster's topic: top seeded unpicked team is not important at the Championship, because alliance captains have a 3rd pick instead of a backup robot. I think 4 team alliances make a better tournament, especially at events with 40 or more teams.

[ANiyaz]

Originally Posted by lovelj

On the inverse, what was the lowest ranked team picked first?

868 was ranked 42nd in Carson after Quals with an OPR of 64.40 (2nd in the divison to 1024). 868 was the first pick of the 6th alliance.

[Chief Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by ANiyaz

868 was ranked 42nd in Carson after Quals with an OPR of 64.40 (2nd in the divison to 1024). 868 was the first pick of the 6th alliance.

I believe that my team (4607) may be the lowest pick among the 256 elim teams. After quals on Carver, we were ranked 56 over all. This was due to our strategic choice to forgo any boulder points whatsoever and concentrate on what we know best - defense.

This was not an easy choice, but after our success with defense against 359 at Lake Superior in week 1, we decided to go this route throughout a Week 6 regional at North Star. We knew that we were taking a big leap and knowing that the 3v0 and 2v1 scenarios laid out by Ginger Power, this would be our best bet to set our team apart.

It worked. We are grateful that 503 and 359 picked us up as the 9th pick on Carver - we just wish we could do more. Our robot has the ability to play all ends of the game (breacher, shooter, defense, and climb) - yet we love to play defense all the way back to our rookie year (2013).

This years' CMP experience will definitely mold the team for years to come. And we are now better aware about how to play the game as one of the best defenders for Stronghold. We cannot wait to see what the MSHSL Tournament beholds for us as we know that 3042 and 4539 will also be defensive robots. Being one of the three dedicated defensive robots that can also work on other parts of the game will set us apart. And our drive team may be a little bit crazy - but they do so with committing very few penalties!

See you all on May 21 at the MSHSL tournament!

[Jscout11]

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog

I believe that my team (4607) may be the lowest pick among the 256 elim teams. After quals on Carver, we were ranked 56 over all. This was due to our strategic choice to forgo any boulder points whatsoever and concentrate on what we know best - defense.

I don't know if we were the lowest either, but team 11 was ranked 59 on Carson and picked for the 3rd pick of the second alliance.

Edit: Upon further inspection, team 1369 was ranked 75th on Carson and was picked for elims, making them at least tied for the lowest seed selected.

[lovelj]

I am confident all teams in elims were scouting and doing a good job. After 8 matches we were ranked 72nd yet were consistent in 20 pt auto on CDF and low bar, scoring 5 to 7 high goals per match. I think our first win was Q118 where we got 10 high goals and 20 pt auto (3824).

http://youtu.be/FKQ2AHvmJHE

Before that match, 2122 was in our pits talking about elims. Thier scouts saw we were a sleeper due to a tough draw. I'm always impressed with the level of scouting at championship. Last year our alliance captain at champs picked the 75th team as our 3rd bot. Generally, if you are highly ranked and not picked it's because either their scouting data suggests that they need something you don't have or they see an inconsistency or vulnerability that they need to avoid in the finals. We started self scouting years ago to keep ourselves honest as well as for marketing our team to others.

This year just seemed to have a higher percentage of low ranked teams getting picked which suggested to me that there was something implicit in the game that had a disproportionate number of strong teams with low rankings.

[wjordan]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

Archimedes:
3932 at rank 12

Carson:
1137 at rank 14

Carver:
1262 at rank 12

Curie:
5279 at rank 19

Galileo:
4499 at rank 15

Hopper:
686 at rank 13

Newton:
2035 at rank 15

Tesla:
2522 at rank 13

4/8 (686, 1137, 1262, 5279) are CHS teams... that's a bit odd.