Week 1 Stats

[TerryS]

Here's some stats from the six Week 1 tournaments covering 605 matches:

Average winning points: 43 (all), 37 (qualification only), 75 (elimination only)
Average losing points: 16 (all), 11 (qualification only), 36 (elimination only)

Highest score: 135 by Teams 16, 148 & 3481 in the Alamo finals
Highest scoring match: 199 total points (117 to 82) by Teams 175, 176 & 1519 over Teams 20, 40 & 131 in the Granite State finals. [edited 03/06/11 to correct winning alliance]

Matches with over 100 points by the winning alliance: 26
Tied Matches: 40 (7%)

Matches determined by minibot scoring: 102 (17%)

Matches with four minibots scoring: 5 (1%)
Matches with three minibots scoring: 32 (5%)
Matches with two minibots scoring: 103 (17%)
Matches with one minibot scoring: 193 (32%)

Matches determined by penalties: 58 (10%)
Penalty free matches: 212 (35%)

And...in what I hope is a statistical anomaly, 5 of the 6 finals were won by the RED alliance!

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by TerryS

And...in what I hope is a statistical anomaly, 5 of the 6 finals were won by the RED alliance!

The higher seed is always the red alliance. It's not a statistical anomaly; it's a side effect of the way the alliance colours are assigned in elims. Basically all that statistic is is that the higher seed won 5/6 times.

[SGK]

Please note that in "199 total points (117 to 82) by Teams 20, 40 & 131 over Teams 175, 176 & 1519 in the Granite State finals" that 175/1519/176 had the 117 points.

[TerryS]

Originally Posted by SGK

Please note that in "199 total points (117 to 82) by Teams 20, 40 & 131 over Teams 175, 176 & 1519 in the Granite State finals" that 175/1519/176 had the 117 points.

Sorry, my bad, apologies to teams 175, 176 & 1519 and congratulations to both alliances on what must have been an exciting match to see! I edited my original post to correct this.

[Stephi Rae]

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

The higher seed is always the red alliance. It's not a statistical anomaly; it's a side effect of the way the alliance colours are assigned in elims. Basically all that statistic is is that the higher seed won 5/6 times.

And...in what I hope is a statistical anomaly, 5 of the 6 finals were won by the RED alliance!

If the 8th seed alliance beats the 1st seed alliance, they are then the red alliance when they play the next set of matches. If they win again, they are again the red alliance because they are in the "top" bracket. Which means even though 8 is playing against 4/5 and is the lower seed alliance, they will be red and 4/5 will be blue. Red alliance regional wins mean alliance 1,4,5 or 8. Not necessarily just the 1st alliance, were possibly a blue alliance at one point, and could easily be a lower seeded alliance than their opponent in the finals.

[TerryS]

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

The higher seed is always the red alliance. It's not a statistical anomaly; it's a side effect of the way the alliance colours are assigned in elims. Basically all that statistic is is that the higher seed won 5/6 times.

Didn't know that. I don't see this in the tournament rules. Is this just a tradition? I would think they'd give the top seed their choice of colors.

Has there ever been a case where there was a side of field bias at a tournament? It's possible that some subtle environmental factor like lightning, air currents (could affect tube throwing this year), crowd noise or maybe a undetected field difference could give a side of field advantage.

In most other sports the teams switch sides for half of the game.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by TerryS

Didn't know that. I don't see this in the tournament rules. Is this just a tradition? I would think they'd give the top seed their choice of colors.

It's a limitation imposed by the Field Management System (FMS). It's the same reason that each team has a random driver station location.

[pandamonium]

the average total score is important too. At FLR it was 33.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by TerryS

Has there ever been a case where there was a side of field bias at a tournament? It's possible that some subtle environmental factor like lightning, air currents (could affect tube throwing this year), crowd noise or maybe a undetected field difference could give a side of field advantage.

In most other sports the teams switch sides for half of the game.

I know at many regionals there is a huge side of field bias. Namely the projection screen often can only be viewed from one side of the field with out turning around. This was the case at Alamo this year, the Red Alliance always had the view of the projection screen so they could get score updates easier. The blue alliance coaches had to turn around to see the screen.

In the past I know that some regionals have attempted to fix this by placing a small monitor in the alliance station that could not see the screen.

I don't know how much this has ever really played into determining a winning alliance, it's just something I have noticed at many events.

[pandamonium]

There have been a few scoring break downs about minibots. Is there one for Uber tubes and there importance? If not I think there should be one made

[Jared Russell]

It is harder to do a full-scale breakdown of ubertube scoring, as this information is not explicitly reported by the @frcfms twitter feed, unlike bonus (minibot) scoring.

[Mark McLeod]

Here are some event by event stats.

---------------------------------# ------------ # --------- Matches -------- Avg ------------- Avg ---------- Avg
------------------------------ teams ----- matches ---- per team ---- match cycle --- Qual score --- Elim score
Overall Averages ---------- 46.9 ---------- 83.8 ---------- 10.3 ---------- 07:48.8 ---------- 22.7 ---------- 54.6

Week 1 (March 3-5)
BAE/Granite State Regional -- 52 ---------- 87 ------------- 10 ---------- 0:06:42 ----------- 27.5 ----------- 65.8
New Jersey Regional ---------- 61 ---------- 90 -------------- 9 ---------- 0:07:33 ----------- 24.7 ----------- 55.8
Finger Lakes Regional -------- 44 ---------- 74 ------------- 10 ---------- 0:07:50 ----------- 33.2 ----------- 61.8
Alamo Regional --------------- 64 ---------- 96 -------------- 9 ---------- 0:07:11 ----------- 18.1 ----------- 61.1
Kettering University District-- 40 ---------- 76 ------------- 12 ---------- 0:08:22 ----------- 18.4 ----------- 45.6
Traverse City District --------- 40 ---------- 80 ------------- 12 ---------- 0:09:15 ----------- 14.0 ----------- 37.3

[JB987]

Originally Posted by TerryS

Here's some stats from the six Week 1 tournaments covering 605 matches:

Average winning points: 43 (all), 37 (qualification only), 75 (elimination only)
Average losing points: 16 (all), 11 (qualification only), 36 (elimination only)

Highest score: 135 by Teams 16, 148 & 3481 in the Alamo finals
Highest scoring match: 199 total points (117 to 82) by Teams 20, 40 & 131 over Teams 175, 176 & 1519 in the Granite State finals.

Matches with over 100 points by the winning alliance: 26
Tied Matches: 40 (7%)

Matches determined by minibot scoring: 102 (17%)

Matches with four minibots scoring: 5 (1%)
Matches with three minibots scoring: 32 (5%)
Matches with two minibots scoring: 103 (17%)
Matches with one minibot scoring: 193 (32%)

Matches determined by penalties: 58 (10%)
Penalty free matches: 212 (35%)

And...in what I hope is a statistical anomaly, 5 of the 6 finals were won by the RED alliance!

So 45% of matches had absolutely no minibot scoring? And 32% just one? An important reminder of the value of being able deploy and run any kind of (legal) minibot up the darn pole!

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

The higher seed is always the red alliance. It's not a statistical anomaly; it's a side effect of the way the alliance colours are assigned in elims. Basically all that statistic is is that the higher seed won 5/6 times.

Not true. The red/blue designation in the next round is "inherited" by the winning of the previous round. So if the #8 seed upsets the #1 seed in the quarter, the #8 seed will be red in the semis against the 4/5 seed. Likewise, if the #3 seed happens to face the #7 seed in the semis, the #3 seed is still going to be blue.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by JB987

So 45% of matches had absolutely no minibot scoring? And 32% just one? An important reminder of the value of being able deploy and run any kind of (legal) minibot up the darn pole!

Indeed. At NJ, we found that only 17 of the 62? (27%) teams had successfully deployed at least one minibot al day Friday.

30 points is a LOT in this game, it behooves teams to have a minibot - even a 4 second one - that can deploy.