07-05-2010 17:34

Phreadumb

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Why does the data on your graph for 1114 start in 2002 if their rookie year was not until 2003?

07-05-2010 17:46

Jon Jack

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

I see two errors off the bat in the 2009 Archimedes alliance selection:

Alliance 2 was 1503/1538/1649
Alliance 6 was 488/118/343

07-05-2010 20:45

Joe Ross

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

They are shown as 0 prior to 2003. The line just connects the 0 in 2002 to the value in 2003.

08-05-2010 07:56

Eric O

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

3 posts and not one Thank You?

Jim,

Thank you for posting this! Although the numbers aren't what matter, it is always fun to look at stats, just like in any other competition/sport.

Any chance you could add 97, 98 and 99 tabs? Not to calculate into your analysis, just so all that information will be in one place.

Thanks again,
Eric

08-05-2010 08:20

IKE

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Thanks Jim for putting this together. Couldn't you have picked a factor that put 33 in the Top 10?

The waiting factor Jim used is pretty neat. If you ask yourself "how much influence should history have"?
For the "team of the decade", it should probably not have a weighting factor, but if you are curious as to the trend, the effect of weighting is very interesting. The 0.66 weighting allows for:
Current: 1
Last year: 0.66
2 years ago: 0.66*0.66=44%
3 years ago: 0.66^3=29%
4 Years ago: 0.66^4=20%

Jim picked this factor as it best followed the "Student cycle" of 4 years. Not only do you loose those students, but you may also loose some really great parent involvement.

This factor also helps up and coming teams like 1625 and 2056 get the respect due to them. For instance 1625 is just 1 ranking position below 33 even though total points over 10 years, they are less than 50%.

The weighting factor is kind of fun to look at. You can play around with different weightings and see the effect. If you go much lower than 50%, then history really has very little to do with the ranking. For example if you had the same result 2 years in a row then scoring would be 1+0.5 which means that last year has less than 33% influence on your current standing.

P.S. Very cute with the color scheme. There is a way to do Tie-die markers if you are interested.

09-05-2010 23:06

Phil Ross

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

very cool. Thanks for posting this database.

10-05-2010 18:30

MagiChau

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Thanks, I saw some data about Team 85 I could not have found on the bluealliance

10-05-2010 20:54

Chris

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Thanks Jim for posting this great data base!!!!

I'd like to throw a shout out to teams 217, 111, 254, 469, 33, 71, and 175, attending Championship 10 years in a row is an accomplishment, never mind making the finals every YEAR OF A DECADE!!!.. Thats an amazing accomplishment...I'm floored...

Thanks again Jim,

11-05-2010 01:21

akeisic

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

lol...I guess we're the "Go Big or Go Home" team of FIRST!

2 Elimination appearances...2 World Championships

This sheet is awesome! Thank you for putting in the effort to compile the information. I especially like the weighting factor - it really levels the playing field between "rookies" and vets.

11-05-2010 10:39

Peter Matteson

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Looking through the data some interesting things struck me.

All 4 #1 seeds have never made it to Einstein, however in 2007 no #1 seeds made Einstein.

2007 Also produced the lowest seed champion with #8, also the only 8 seed to ever advance to Einstein.

In general it looks like 1 and 2 seeds are most successful at advancing from their division.

7 teams have been in 10 consecutive elimination rounds at the championship.

6 Teams now have 2 or more championships during this decade where as only1 team had multiple wins for the first 18 years of FIRST. All multiple champions other than 71 have won their second since 2008.

2 Teams have won back to back championships.

3 Teams have at least 3 consecutive appearances on Einstein.

Teams with multiple trips to Einstein teams that have won are bolded:
6: 177
5: 67, 217
4: 71, 233
3: 25, 60, 111, 175, 254, 469
2: 33, 64, 144, 173, 294, 494, 503, 968, 1114, 1126, 1218

~0.66% of FRC Teams registered each year make the Championship.
~1.26% of all FRC Teams registered this year have made Einstein more than once.
~.678% of all teams ever registered has made Einstein more than once.

58 teams have made Einstein once for a total of 81 unique team numbers appearing in the "Final Four" meaning ~2.39% of all teams have made the final field at some point since the current format for the championship started in 2001.

I'm amazed you able to collect all this great data, thanks for posting it.

03-05-2011 22:18

Jim Zondag

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

I have updated this championship history database with the 2011 Results.
Congrats to Wildstang for moving into 1st place overall on the weighted history scale.

04-05-2011 08:37

Adam Freeman

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Jim,

Thank you! I alway love looking into this data and trying to determine which team is #1. Congratulations to Wildstang for taking over the title....for this year.

One error I noticed was, in the data for Archimedes you have 2106 instead of 2016.

Also, I am not exactly sure how the weighted data is calculated but we seem to be taking a significant dive in value compared to other past year champions, even though we had similar performances. I guess when you pull ahead by so much, the expectations are that much higher.

Interestingly enough 217 is showing a decline, even though they did better this year than last year. Yet, 469 shows an improvement even though they declined compared to last year.

Interesting, thanks.

04-05-2011 08:38

thefro526

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Thanks for posting such an interesting database.

I noticed a few mistakes though, it seems that the database has us (816) listed as the 11th pick in the Curie 09 draft, when we were the 6th Alliance Captain. Also I believe the draft position of 1771 is wrong as well. Probably won't change anything, but it caught my eye.

04-05-2011 09:04

Robby Unruh

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Really nice paper.
I guess 111 is up there in the ranks with 67, 3-time world champs. Congrats again, guys.

04-05-2011 10:00

JamesBrown

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

I think that 67 ran into the problem of not having room to improve, appearances in the Einstein finals in a row is tough to top, 217 benefits from having a down year last year (if you can call division finalist a down year).

If I wanted to calculate 78's ranking including when they were part of 121 can I just add their 11 year derated points? I assume I can because there is no overlap in the years they made eliminations (121 made it 220-the split, 78 made it the two years since the split), including results before the split 78 jumps up to 13/14 with 33 and 330.

04-05-2011 10:59

martin417

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Yes, in 2009, 1771 was the #1 pick draft selection on Curie

04-05-2011 22:28

Jim Zondag

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Thanks for the updates. I reposted this file with a couple of updates to the 2009 tab. In 2009, we had someone record all the alliance pairings, but I couldn't ever find the notebook they were written in when we got back from Atlanta. I thought I had all the corrections when I posted this last year, but perhaps not.

This is one of my biggest beefs with FIRST's data: the draft order is very important but is not presented anywhere in the official data. Bizarre.

Adam, the weighted average is really just a guess. Obviously history matters in overall team quality assessments, but stuff that happened 10 years ago is clearly much less relevant than what happened this year. The weighted average uses a 2/3 (66.7%) derating for each year. Thus if you got 50 points this year, it would still be worth 33 point next year, 22 points the year after that, etc. More details on the "Notes" tab. It will help boost your score way up if you do good things consecutively (like say, winning the Championship twice in a row ). Kind of like bowling.

Why 66.7%? It seems about right based on my judgement, 50% seems too low, but this is a hard thing to prove mathematically.

In 67's case, you had 161 points acculated last year, the highest ever, which are now worth 107 (-54) this year, plus 25 more this year = 132.
217, while outperforming last year, still lost a little ground due to continued derating of their 2008 & 2009 peak data.
The best score possible if you use this system is 198, but you would need to be world champion for 10 years straight to achieve this.

If anyone wants to play around with this, just change the value in cell Z1 on tab "11 year history results" and resort the results. Higher makes the totals linger longer, small makes them decay faster. Fun with math.

Regardless, there is no doubt that the small group of teams at the top are the very best in the world. Congrats to you all!

30-04-2012 11:17

Jim Zondag

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Attached is the updated Championship History Results Spreadsheet.
I have included all of the results of CMP Elimination rounds for 2012, it now includes 12 years of data.

Team #67 moves back into first place on both the Total Points Accumulated, and the Annually Derated Total. Team HOT is awesome as always.

439 teams have played in the CMP elimination rounds since 2001 out of 1184 total possible openings in this 12 year period.

The strongest indication that a team will play in next year's CMP Elimination rounds is whether they played in this years Elimination rounds. If only the FRC enrollment system allowed a better way to get everyone to the event, this would be even more true. It is tragic that 3 of our all time top 20 could not even get in to the 2012 CMP.

Enjoy.

30-04-2012 14:06

Zebra_Fact_Man

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Thank you Jim! This data is spectacular. It is almost impossible to find any data regarding years before 2003.

Sooo much detail!

30-04-2012 14:08

Peter Matteson

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Jim,
Once again I'm glad to see an update to this and shocked with how fast you were able to get this posted.

Also I did notice a typo. 2012 is listed as 2011 so if you need to update it for something else you can fix that too.

Pete

The typo/copy-paste error is on the 12 year history table.

30-04-2012 14:35

Gary Dillard

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Thanks Jim - this historical data is hard to come by and I missed this before. I found something interesting here (at least to me) - the last time 180 was on Einstein (2002) they beat a pretty good alliance in the semi-finals.....
233, 25, 118

30-04-2012 14:38

Grim Tuesday

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Funny how history repeats its self.

30-04-2012 14:44

nuggetsyl

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

It was so hot that day and those matches we got hammered. We redesigned our robots drivetrain and evil machine 1.0 came out in 03

30-04-2012 14:47

Gary Dillard

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Ah yes, the pre-CIM days when the teams from the north would come down and fry their FP's and Bosch's that had been running in the cold all winter.

30-04-2012 15:10

nuggetsyl

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

16 needs to be fixed for 2012

01-05-2013 22:47

Jim Zondag

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Updated FRC Championship History Results Spreadsheet.
Complete results of Elimination Round Performance from 2001-2013
Notable points:
- Team 67 Remains in the #1 position as "best team ever" on both the Derated Points Scale and the Total Point Scale
- 987 moves into #2 position, passing 254, 233, and 1114.
- Overall grouping of the top 20 is much tighter this year, indicating that the level of compeition in CMP Elims was more closely balanced than in the past.
- interestingly, a total 469 teams have competed in CMP Elims in 13 years

01-05-2013 23:13

Marc S.

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

This is an awesome ranking system, thank you so much for doing this!

01-05-2013 23:32

qzrrbz

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Is there enough information about IRI to be able to add that to this sheet, too?

02-05-2013 14:45

SIIENGINEER

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Jim...Thanks for putting this together. I only have a ??? it shows that 16 was a QF last year 2012. Should that not show them as WC?

Again...Thank you very much for taking the time to gather and present these #'s for us.

02-05-2013 15:08

James Tonthat

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

I'm wondering, do WC's count less in 2013 (looking at the Elimination Points Table on the 13 Year History Result)?

02-05-2013 15:09

Al Skierkiewicz

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Thanks Jim.
The one thing that stood out for me on the graph is how so many teams average around the 80% mark overall. I would have to say, that on average we are all doing well and about the same.

02-05-2013 22:03

Jim Zondag

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

James, Thanks, good catch. It turns out I made a mistake and neglected to give any of the teams credit for Einstein this year . I reviewed the whole thing and reposted. Serves me right for trying to do this on a plane.

25-02-2014 09:51

Navid Shafa

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

I've become a huge fan of all of your stats over the years. I keep gravitating towards your spreadsheets whenever I'm doing any research of my own. Just today, I noticed the 2013 tab of the newest spreadsheet seems to have a team and location mismatch. I noticed this first when I saw 1718 is next to Goleta, CA. I thought it might be an Off by One error, but there are some other funky things going on here...

While I have you here, I presume you are responsible for this?

As I mentioned over here, I was mulling over what this would look like with MAR, PNW, NEF and Canada added to it. If I end up doing it, i'd rather not start from scratch. Heck, I might even be able to snag nearly everything I need from something the Great Zondag made

30-04-2014 02:14

Navid Shafa

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

I've gotten most of the data I needed for my side projects. Do you plan on adding PNE and NE to your region data spreads this year?

Can't wait for the 2014 Championship History update!

30-04-2014 08:50

Joe Ross

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/3019?

30-04-2014 09:56

Jim Zondag

Re: paper: FIRST Championship History Results

Navid,
I will scritinize this a little more and fix any errors when I get a chance. I did most of it in an airport, so it may need some additional review

Yes, I was planning to add analyses for PNW, NEF, Canada, Minnesota and a few other areas to this summary. I am a math guy and I like numeric proof over opinion. I did that analysis earlier to justify to some people that the District system helps to make teams better. It is not the only way, but it is effective. The main thing that makes teams better is playing (duh). In some regions like Ontario, we see a similar phenomenon that we see here: the culture has shifted so that many/most teams play multiple times each year and as a result, the average capability of the region increases. Districts make it cheaper, but geography is still one of the main factors. If you can get a lot of events close to lots of teams, then the region will improve compared to others which are more diffuse.

The FRC appears to finally be "over the hump" on number of plays per year.
2014 is the first year in FRC history where less than 50% only played one event.

In 2014, 2696 teams have played events according to the FRC database.

Events Played: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5+

Percentage: 47%, 35%, 13%, 4%, 2%

Num of Teams: 1254, 945, 350, 106, 41

26% of the FRC is now in District Systems. (702/2696)