Newton 09

[MOE]

HELLOooooo from the North East


NEWTON !!!!

TYE DYE for ever oh yeah ???? OH YEAH !!!!
MOE and Team 88 TJ2 see all soooooon

[Dan 1038]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

Similar to what I did last year, I ran through 193 simulated qualification match schedules (all 102 matches, using the FIRST match generator). I used each team's average opr for their contribution to a match. I calculated the standings for each of the 193 simulated qualification schedules, and then looked at some statistics from the aggregate results.

When I went back and looked at last year's data, a team finished within 1 standard deviation of their average seed 60% of the time, and within 2 standard deviations 95% of the time. Only 3 teams seeded higher/lower then their min/max seed.

Team  Avg Seed	Median	Mode	StDev	Min	Max	#1 seed	Top 8
1625	6.3	4	1	7.5	1	48	40	155
121	7.4	5	1	7.7	1	47	46	131
1726	10.4	7	1	9.8	1	47	20	106
1507	12.6	9	3	12.6	1	69	11	96
2970	14.4	11	4	12.7	1	67	10	85
1701	17.6	14	3	13.6	1	78	7	56
234	18.5	14	5	15.3	1	65	7	60
16	21.8	17	7	16.2	1	76	4	47
1155	21.5	19	5	14.9	1	66	3	42
2377	22.4	19	5	15.8	1	76	2	44
102	21.2	17	7	16.1	1	67	3	49
191	21.9	19	2	14.8	1	64	2	43
364	22.6	19	31	15.5	1	67	2	40
1038	22.9	18	7	16.8	1	79	2	41

First, I must say I am impressed at your analysis - neat way to look at the available data and extrapolate a result. Unfortunately, as the stats suggest, the analysis really doesn't mean anything. The standard deviations are too large to lead any credance to the results, as would be expected in an analysis with this many variables. Keep at it, if you can refine this it will be a very cool way to predict team's success!

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Dan 1038

First, I must say I am impressed at your analysis - neat way to look at the available data and extrapolate a result. Unfortunately, as the stats suggest, the analysis really doesn't mean anything. The standard deviations are too large to lead any credance to the results, as would be expected in an analysis with this many variables. Keep at it, if you can refine this it will be a very cool way to predict team's success!

It worked better last year because there was a much wider distribution of scores. This year, there's isn't as big of difference between the 3rd or 4th best robot in a division and the 20th. The standard deviations last year were about half of what they are this year.

The other thing this demonstrates is how only 7 seeding rounds isn't adequate.

The final factor is that this year it's much harder to separate a single robot's performance in to any single number. For example, your partner that pins another robot so you can score doesn't score anything itself, but certainly contributes points to the alliance. Last year's game was much more seperable, and in that case OPR correlated with our scouting very well (0.9). This year it's still decent, but not as good (0.6).

[Dan 1038]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

The final factor is that this year it's much harder to separate a single robot's performance in to any single number. For example, your partner that pins another robot so you can score doesn't score anything itself, but certainly contributes points to the alliance. Last year's game was much more seperable, and in that case OPR correlated with our scouting very well (0.9). This year it's still decent, but not as good (0.6).

Agreed, Last year was perfect for this type of analysis as there was no significant defense contribution, as Simbotics so blatantly showed all of us . We had the (mis?)fortune of being against them at both Midwest and the championships... This year has so many variables, it is about impossible to analyze individual robots using alliance stats. At Buckeye, I saw a number of defensive bots with no scoring ability score huge - they had human players off the basketball team! That is a key to the game this year which is kind of new, since the HPs can make or break a close match. It is also about impossible to show the effectiveness of HPs without dedicating scouts to watch the robot and another to watch the HP!

[Wayne TenBrink]

All these predictions and rating systems are great, but the only score that matters is the one that shows up on the board after the match. All are good in that they make us think about what factors matter in this game, and they give us something to do while we wait for the real thing!

All of them seem to be in general agreement, with the same teams showing up in approximately the same place on each. I would caution against trying to get too precise with any of this. In fact, I think you are kidding youself if you have more than one or two significant digits in the rating.

We plan to use advance scouting for two things:
1) Qual match planning - who are the scoring threats, who is likely to come after us, and who should we send after their top threat?
2) Draft scouting priority - since we really can't do a good job of scouting every team. We plan to focus on about the top half.

Not to be left out of the fun, we came up with our own system. It is based mostly on the FIRST in MI system (win/loss record, draft selection, and elimination performance, all normalized to account for the different numbers of events) with a scaling factor based on the Simbots "+/- contribution" thrown in for good measure. Did we put the proper empahsis on the correct statistics? Who knows. It must be right because it puts us in the top 10 (just kidding). It agrees with a lot of the other ratings, but there are some good teams that didn't make the cut, so I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Here is what we came up with for the teams above the median:

Team # Rating
1625 49
2970 43
1155 42
121 42
1038 41
1726 41
1657 39
368 39
1507 38
85 35
1918 34
852 33
234 33
612 32
1086 32
3075 31
16 31
2344 31
832 29
148 28
469 28
1868 28
1569 27
292 27
768 27
365 27
1706 26
126 26
2866 25
2377 25
135 25
2004 25
102 24
2996 24
2609 23
2659 23
1714 22
1629 22
360 22
88 22
1511 21
233 21
364 20
1732 20
1701 20

[rees2001]

Not sure how statistic driven your analysis is. You seem to have left off a good number of good teams and included a number of teams that were picked teams at regionals, not the pickers.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

All these predictions and rating systems are great, but the only score that matters is the one that shows up on the board after the match.

That's true, but you can't use that score to scout individual teams! There are 5 other robots on the field, that all affect the score! Making a scouting system based on that not only defeats the purpose of scouting at a regional, it's inaccurate because qualifiers aren't perfect.

Maybe I'm just critical because my team's not on the upper half of that list, though

[IKE]

Great work with all of the techniques so far.

One thing I like about the Simbots system is they look at each indiviual team and event. One important factor on this is to look for trends. Like anything else with time, some get better. Some do worse (because the field got better), some got lucky, some are consistently good.

The averaging systems can be dangerous because they do not pay attention to these trends. Some experienced teams had a great first weekend because there were a lot of dead bots at the regionals they attended that they could pick on.

Consistent top and bottom performers are easy to pick out. If a team only attends 1 event, it is very difficult to determine Lucky vs. Good.

Happy Data Crunching!

Rembmer always temper your data with common sense, and make sure your opinion reflects reality by using a data.

[rees2001]

Originally Posted by IKE

One important factor on this is to look for trends. Like anything else with time, some get better.

The averaging systems can be dangerous because they do not pay attention to these trends.

This is a good point, some teams show up for competition with systems that need some work while others show up as ready as they will ever be.

340 showed up with some work to do. We started 0-3 & then went 9-1 before losing 2 in the finals. The record shows 9-6 but I see, streaks of 0-3 then 5-0 in quals, 4-1 then 0-2 in elims. We have also had weeks to work out the bugs & make some changes . I love the speculation leading up to Championship & I do know that prior performance plays a part but, things can change.

[Athleticgirl389]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

Similar to what I did last year, I ran through 193 simulated qualification match schedules (all 102 matches, using the FIRST match generator). I used each team's average opr for their contribution to a match. I calculated the standings for each of the 193 simulated qualification schedules, and then looked at some statistics from the aggregate results.

When I went back and looked at last year's data, a team finished within 1 standard deviation of their average seed 60% of the time, and within 2 standard deviations 95% of the time. Only 3 teams seeded higher/lower then their min/max seed.

Team  Avg Seed	Median	Mode	StDev	Min	Max	#1 seed	Top 8
1625	6.3	4	1	7.5	1	48	40	155
121	7.4	5	1	7.7	1	47	46	131
1726	10.4	7	1	9.8	1	47	20	106
1507	12.6	9	3	12.6	1	69	11	96
2970	14.4	11	4	12.7	1	67	10	85
1701	17.6	14	3	13.6	1	78	7	56
234	18.5	14	5	15.3	1	65	7	60
16	21.8	17	7	16.2	1	76	4	47
1155	21.5	19	5	14.9	1	66	3	42
2377	22.4	19	5	15.8	1	76	2	44
102	21.2	17	7	16.1	1	67	3	49
191	21.9	19	2	14.8	1	64	2	43
364	22.6	19	31	15.5	1	67	2	40
1038	22.9	18	7	16.8	1	79	2	41
469	22.2	19	4	15.8	1	70	2	42
148	24.3	20	13	16.3	1	82	2	24
1732	25.4	22	19	16.1	1	68	1	27
135	24.2	22	30	15.2	1	77	6	31
1918	27.6	25	32	16.1	1	75	2	19
368	29.6	27	18	18.0	1	86	3	18
2344	28.7	27	6	17.3	1	86	3	26
1868	29.0	25	17	17.0	1	82	1	22
233	29.9	28	11	18.8	1	81	4	24
292	32.4	30	9	18.6	2	79	0	14
612	31.6	31	44	17.9	2	78	0	22
1714	33.4	31	22	17.9	3	85	0	11
852	32.5	30	8	19.2	1	87	1	17
360	31.2	27	51	19.2	1	78	2	22
85	30.9	28	25	18.3	3	84	0	15
126	30.4	29	22	16.4	1	77	1	14
122	35.9	34	43	18.9	1	84	1	13
1657	33.5	31	21	19.6	1	80	1	20
1629	33.8	32	32	19.2	2	86	0	17
88	37.8	35	19	20.8	2	86	0	15
846	35.1	34	30	18.7	1	83	1	13
365	36.7	34	14	20.6	2	83	0	12
768	37.9	36	35	17.4	2	79	0	7
33	36.9	36	32	19.2	1	81	2	11
1086	40.2	40	43	20.4	2	80	0	12
159	40.5	38	39	19.3	2	82	0	7
340	42.4	43	65	19.6	2	85	0	8
842	43.8	42	52	20.0	2	84	0	6
1350	43.9	45	46	18.9	2	82	0	4
3075	43.8	43	34	19.8	4	86	0	9
862	42.4	44	49	19.0	2	81	0	6
2890	44.1	46	55	19.9	2	85	0	9
2609	44.3	44	44	20.5	5	87	0	4
2866	46.0	47	34	19.1	6	87	0	4
177	46.6	51	53	20.7	6	84	0	3
2875	49.5	50	70	18.9	6	86	0	3
2283	51.7	53	68	18.0	10	83	0	0
2771	50.5	51	51	19.4	3	87	0	2
832	54.9	57	53	19.4	8	87	0	1
195	54.3	57	58	17.9	2	87	0	1
1138	54.3	57	61	17.9	12	87	0	0
578	53.4	56	56	18.0	6	86	0	1
1557	57.6	59	56	16.9	17	85	0	0
1730	53.9	55	38	20.0	6	86	0	2
228	56.3	58	71	18.7	1	87	1	2
1811	58.4	60	62	17.7	7	87	0	1
339	56.1	59	67	18.6	8	87	0	1
1516	57.2	59	55	17.8	10	87	0	0
1706	57.2	60	69	18.3	14	87	0	0
1098	56.8	58	72	19.1	7	87	0	1
358	59.3	61	70	18.5	7	87	0	1
2659	57.3	60	60	19.7	4	87	0	1
1569	60.1	62	73	16.8	12	85	0	0
980	58.5	60	66	17.7	11	87	0	0
2004	60.6	65	79	19.7	10	87	0	0
1511	60.2	64	58	18.4	8	86	0	1
1209	62.3	65	80	17.4	10	86	0	0
1458	61.9	67	56	17.6	12	87	0	0
2836	63.4	68	73	16.7	6	87	0	2
620	63.8	64	82	15.9	8	87	0	1
1506	67.3	72	75	16.2	25	87	0	0
2067	67.9	72	72	15.4	15	87	0	0
2702	67.5	72	81	15.6	11	87	0	0
2783	67.6	71	85	14.6	25	87	0	0
138	71.3	75	85	13.7	21	87	0	0
1547	69.4	73	83	14.0	16	87	0	0
1700	70.3	74	84	13.6	34	87	0	0
1311	70.4	74	74	13.7	25	87	0	0
1023	72.3	76	86	13.3	29	87	0	0
2996	73.2	76	84	12.0	22	87	0	0
2549	73.1	76	87	12.9	14	87	0	0
529	75.2	78	86	11.4	38	87	0	0
86	82.4	85	87	7.4	42	87	0	0

Boy oh boy do I love Stats <3 LOL! Coinicidence.... all 102 matches and 102 is there, doing pretty well... I always knew I liked that number lol. Seeing Stats. in general are just fun things so this is amazing

[Chexposito]

Just to clarify what I said about team driven's strategy. We can score but a good strategy that worked well for us at one regional for empty cell delivery. We can score and especially because of our awesome drivetrain. We can adapt to many roles. And one very nice thing is we don't break like other robots. The only thing we've broken was in the pit by accident.

[Joe Ross]

I used the average OPR and actual match schedule to predict the outcome of every match and the standings.

Match	Red 1	Red 2	Red 3	Blue 1	Blue 2	Blue 3	R Score	B Score
1	364	1209	1811	2609	2771	852	62	67
2	469	2996	2702	1507	228	1155	51	88
3	360	135	368	1701	862	1506	86	68
4	612	2344	2970	1730	88	233	94	71
5	2836	339	768	2283	86	159	54	40
6	1350	846	2783	102	122	138	59	68
7	292	177	980	85	842	121	63	94
8	1511	1098	16	2659	1625	1657	63	88
9	195	2377	1726	126	2004	2549	90	49
10	1311	1629	2890	1706	1516	620	56	44
11	340	1714	1547	234	1038	578	59	84
12	1918	358	687	1458	1557	1086	70	54
13	529	832	1138	148	1732	2875	42	81
14	2866	1023	1569	3075	2067	191	44	65
15	1868	33	1350	1700	365	16	75	67
16	126	612	2609	2783	2659	862	75	49
17	159	620	102	1657	135	2702	67	67
18	1726	234	2890	2283	228	177	96	56
19	578	85	195	368	2344	2771	63	77
20	339	2970	360	2549	529	292	81	41
21	2067	1557	88	846	832	1701	54	79
22	2377	1516	1458	122	980	1023	62	49
23	233	148	364	33	340	2996	91	56
24	3075	1706	121	1918	852	1511	83	71
25	365	2004	1732	768	1714	1629	71	78
26	1868	1811	1625	1138	2866	469	90	71
27	1506	842	86	2875	1569	1086	32	58
28	2836	1730	1155	138	1038	191	62	74
29	687	1547	1507	1209	1098	1311	72	39
30	1700	85	159	358	122	862	59	64
31	195	2283	16	529	980	233	70	49
32	1706	1023	228	2970	1350	126	41	87
33	768	2771	469	2890	135	2659	76	68
34	365	86	2702	177	2067	1918	35	61
35	578	1629	1625	1730	846	148	90	74
36	364	339	1547	842	191	1868	57	82
37	33	292	620	358	832	1569	65	49
38	1506	2377	1732	1098	1557	612	74	60
39	360	1657	1209	1714	3075	2836	67	62
40	102	88	1726	1511	1038	2996	98	54
41	1155	2875	1700	687	340	1516	61	63
42	2783	2549	852	2866	1458	2344	45	64
43	2004	121	1701	1311	1811	234	95	59
44	1138	2609	1507	138	1086	368	78	62
45	86	1098	1868	980	126	148	42	73
46	1657	832	364	2377	578	1706	76	66
47	2067	2996	1506	2836	2970	2771	30	69
48	122	612	1569	1714	1511	195	68	59
49	340	1732	2549	842	846	2890	60	70
50	862	88	852	687	234	339	75	74
51	1023	1701	768	292	1038	1138	68	78
52	1625	102	1311	1155	365	358	87	74
53	3075	2344	2283	1086	620	1700	70	44
54	121	16	159	138	228	360	101	54
55	469	1730	2004	2783	33	177	64	56
56	1516	1507	2659	1557	1811	233	71	61
57	529	368	1918	1726	2866	1209	65	75
58	1458	1547	2875	1629	2702	85	43	64
59	191	1350	2996	135	2609	86	62	49
60	980	1138	234	364	2836	2549	67	52
61	1086	2067	360	612	852	102	61	86
62	1511	2344	148	339	1023	2004	74	39
63	233	1868	620	121	1038	687	68	102
64	2970	842	1714	1516	1701	1625	87	97
65	1918	1811	846	195	1098	159	72	57
66	1458	1350	1569	340	368	2659	51	68
67	358	16	2609	1629	3075	1726	70	88
68	177	1706	2771	529	88	191	55	64
69	138	1657	2866	1732	126	85	57	84
70	1557	1209	2702	1730	1700	768	42	51
71	862	2377	33	1311	228	2875	79	46
72	122	832	2283	135	365	1507	63	95
73	2890	1506	292	2783	1155	1547	62	53
74	469	1516	1511	578	1086	2549	62	48
75	842	1098	1023	2996	234	360	46	69
76	1701	340	2836	529	2344	1629	71	61
77	2004	2866	620	980	612	1350	48	64
78	1730	2067	1714	159	2875	1706	55	59
79	122	33	852	1557	1138	1726	78	75
80	846	368	126	1155	339	16	82	81
81	2783	1732	135	1311	1868	195	71	55
82	85	1038	228	86	1625	364	76	76
83	2771	121	1569	1700	1657	1507	79	74
84	578	2609	687	768	1506	177	64	56
85	233	3075	862	2890	365	1458	72	62
86	138	148	1811	292	88	2702	57	65
87	2659	191	2283	1209	358	2377	67	62
88	2970	102	832	469	1547	1918	88	71
89	529	842	1038	1350	159	852	60	72
90	1098	2875	2836	620	1726	2783	49	63
91	1516	2609	1569	1868	360	1730	52	72
92	1086	228	365	1701	2771	2866	66	75
93	768	1458	195	88	364	1507	57	97
94	578	1138	2890	1209	2996	2004	58	37
95	86	1700	1629	1811	832	1023	33	42
96	135	340	138	612	339	1706	62	59
97	126	234	1625	292	3075	122	107	76
98	2702	1511	1311	846	2283	2970	34	82
99	980	1714	2659	102	33	2344	58	86
100	2067	85	687	2377	469	16	62	97
101	233	368	358	1547	1732	177	73	60
102	191	2549	1657	1506	1918	148	65	73
103	1557	1155	195	121	862	529	68	73

Rank	Team	Wins	Losses	Ties	Matches	QP	RS	MP
1	121	7	0	0	7	14	65.29	102
2	1625	6	0	1	7	13	74.43	107
3	102	6	0	1	7	13	63.43	98
4	1726	6	1	0	7	12	59.71	98
5	2771	6	1	0	7	12	59.71	79
6	1507	6	1	0	7	12	58.14	97
7	126	6	1	0	7	12	56.43	107
8	191	6	1	0	7	12	56.29	82
9	2344	6	1	0	7	12	54.43	94
10	2970	6	1	0	7	12	53.57	94
11	1701	5	2	0	7	10	66.14	97
12	368	5	2	0	7	10	64.29	86
13	852	5	2	0	7	10	64	86
14	3075	5	2	0	7	10	61.29	88
15	862	5	2	0	7	10	60.86	79
16	234	5	2	0	7	10	60.29	107
17	88	5	2	0	7	10	60.29	98
18	846	5	2	0	7	10	59.86	82
19	687	5	2	0	7	10	59.14	102
20	612	5	2	0	7	10	58.14	94
21	33	5	2	0	7	10	58.14	86
22	1516	5	2	0	7	10	57.43	97
23	1629	5	2	0	7	10	56.57	90
24	2377	5	2	0	7	10	56.29	97
25	360	5	2	0	7	10	54.86	86
26	2890	5	2	0	7	10	54.29	96
27	148	5	2	0	7	10	53.57	91
28	1350	5	2	0	7	10	53.57	87
29	1038	4	2	1	7	9	63.86	102
30	135	4	2	1	7	9	61.29	95
31	122	4	3	0	7	8	62.86	78
32	469	4	3	0	7	8	61	97
33	1918	4	3	0	7	8	59.71	73
34	1868	4	3	0	7	8	58.86	90
35	2659	4	3	0	7	8	58.86	88
36	292	4	3	0	7	8	58.14	78
37	1138	4	3	0	7	8	58.14	78
38	340	4	3	0	7	8	58.14	71
39	1732	4	3	0	7	8	57.86	84
40	578	4	3	0	7	8	57.57	90
41	768	4	3	0	7	8	57.43	78
42	2609	4	3	0	7	8	57.14	78
43	832	4	3	0	7	8	54	88
44	2283	4	3	0	7	8	49.71	82
45	1657	3	3	1	7	7	64.86	88
46	364	3	3	1	7	7	60.86	97
47	85	3	3	1	7	7	60.43	94
48	159	3	3	1	7	7	56	101
49	16	3	4	0	7	6	63.71	101
50	358	3	4	0	7	6	61.14	74
51	233	3	4	0	7	6	61	91
52	1730	3	4	0	7	6	58.86	74
53	138	3	4	0	7	6	58.57	74
54	842	3	4	0	7	6	57.86	94
55	1811	3	4	0	7	6	57.14	90
56	2866	3	4	0	7	6	56.57	75
57	1506	3	4	0	7	6	52	74
58	1569	3	4	0	7	6	51.57	79
59	980	3	4	0	7	6	51.57	73
60	2836	3	4	0	7	6	50.86	71
61	2875	3	4	0	7	6	46.86	81
62	620	2	4	1	7	5	52.71	68
63	2702	2	4	1	7	5	47	67
64	529	2	5	0	7	4	56	73
65	1706	2	5	0	7	4	55.86	83
66	339	2	5	0	7	4	55.86	81
67	1209	2	5	0	7	4	52.71	75
68	1511	2	5	0	7	4	52.57	74
69	2783	2	5	0	7	4	52.29	71
70	1458	2	5	0	7	4	51.57	64
71	2004	2	5	0	7	4	51.29	95
72	1311	2	5	0	7	4	50.14	87
73	2067	2	5	0	7	4	48.71	65
74	2996	2	5	0	7	4	46.14	69
75	228	1	5	1	7	3	55.71	88
76	1714	1	6	0	7	2	64.43	87
77	1155	1	6	0	7	2	64.29	88
78	365	1	6	0	7	2	62.57	95
79	195	1	6	0	7	2	58.29	90
80	1547	1	6	0	7	2	54.57	72
81	177	1	6	0	7	2	54.43	63
82	1700	1	6	0	7	2	54.29	74
83	1086	1	6	0	7	2	52.43	66
84	1023	1	6	0	7	2	45.71	68
85	86	0	6	1	7	1	43.86	76
86	1557	0	7	0	7	0	59.14	75
87	2549	0	7	0	7	0	51.43	65
88	1098	0	7	0	7	0	50.86	63

If you don't like how your team did in the simulation, don't worry, OPR has only shown to be slightly better then flipping a coin this year.

[IKE]

Nice work Joe:

I am anxious to see a corelation study. As you said though, this year OPR seems to be less predictive.

Do you use a season average OPR or is it based off of last event?

[Robotinquirer]

Wow Newton is cool

How did team 33 Change from a spinner to a shooter. Theay went from a round robot too weaks ago at the Michigan event to a sq bot (did team 65 or team 68 provide the plans)?

[IKE]

Designs have been done for a long time. That is how 33 chose to try the 40 pound allowance.

There was actually a significant mod that occurred at State with the addition of a hood on the shooter.

The team then decided to try the other design that was actually inpsired by 67 (if you read all the 67 posts they did a shooter to power dumper swap just prior to their first competition).

I am not at Nationals and haven't actually seen it play. Hopefully it works out good.