It’s really hard to do 7 gear cycles per match, and I haven’t ever heard of 8 cycles being accomplished by any teams. The teams that have been placing 8-9 gears have been gear pickup bots that get help from alliance partners or opponents.
If 125’s scouting data says that a team has gotten 7 gears or has consistently gotten 6, it means that team is phenomenal at gears.
I personally think there comes a point in gear running that it is impossible to distinguish who is better than the next. There are quite a few teams that are TOP TIER gear runners that come to my mind. 5687,604,340,3310,1011,610 and even still I’m probably forgetting a few.
Part of what makes any pure gear number argument difficult this year is the hard cap on gears scored. As the average level of gear scoring increases, the maximum outputs also decrease. At higher levels of play, teams converge towards the 3-5 gear region, as there’s no point to scoring gears beyond 12. This is where purely numerical scouting began to break down a bit in terms of evaluating and ranking the middle tier of gear scorers at high level events.
Bingo. The number of gears scored on average per match is highly influenced by how good your partners are. As an example there are plenty of matches where 2848 only did 4 cycles, but that doesn’t mean we could ONLY do 4 cycles, just that we didn’t have to do more than that.
Another interesting factoid that skews the data with gear runners is where the gear came from. I suspect many scouts just count the number of gears scored and don’t differentiate cycles as part of it, meaning that teams that pickup missed gears and steal from the opponent zones are always going to look like they did more than they did. That being said I think the added utility of these features should justify teams being ranked higher so it doesn’t impact “who is the best” much.
Saying that a team averaged 7+ gears/match is about as funny as Paul Copioli telling everyone he was averaging 7 tubes a match in 2007 (or if we claimed we averaged 7+ tubes in 2011).
Generally speaking there seems to be a huge disconnect among most people between the most gears they saw someone do in a match, and the average number. If someone averaged 7, they either never did lower, or had a match where they did 6 and another where they did 8. Both scenarios are totally unbelievable
FWIW, divisions.co shows 5687’s teleop gear OPR as 4.19. Unclear if that is pre or post champs (I think pre). It’s highly unlikely they improved by 60% between DCMP and Champs. I don’t mean this as a sleight against them. They were great. Just pointing out how implausible it was that they could be averaging 7+ gears/match
Furthering this, if one were to compare the two metrics, gear OPR and 4 rotor occurrences, you could measure how easy or hard a team’s schedule is or if they had the ability to score more but didn’t after the fourth rotor. For example, during non-4 rotor matches, if they score a nontrivial increase in gears than before, they have a theoretical higher ceiling but haven’t needed to demonstrate it.
I agree with this. How many teams are even capable of putting up 8 gears in a match? Especially at champs where the 12 gear ceiling gets hit pretty early. Even more, in an elimination match & still have time to play some D? Cycles &/or cleanup and opportunistic theft are still gears scored. If anything stealing the gear from your opponent can be seen as a net +2. +1 for us -1 for you. Just because a team didn’t make Einstein doesn’t mean they weren’t as “good” as another team.
5687s first miss of 4 rotors at CMP came on Einstein, and came from a spectacular defensive play by 1241 who gave up their climb to keep our alliance’s last gear off the peg (held by 5687). This was the only time they missed 4 rotors at CMP.
I was surprised 2848 hadn’t been mentioned in this thread. 2848 was pretty much matching 604 gear for gear throughout Hopper playoffs and had the better ground pickup.
Also agreed that stats may be skewed due to scouts that only count the number of gears scored. We realized at our early regionals that raw gear counts were not providing enough information. By the end of the season, 604 was tracking where scored gears came from and noted whether an alliance reached 3 or 4 rotors and elected to stop scoring gears early on in the match.
This is something I started glancing at while helping 708 create pick list on Friday night. Unfortunately I didn’t have the time or energy to fully devote to it, but it’s part of why I pushed pretty hard for 1481 (who had a 9/10 rate on Daly, with their only failure coming when a partner focused on hitting the 40kPa mark). I believe 3620, 2062, 1718, and 340 also performed very well by this metric.
And since we’re throwing them out there, 708 was 10/10 in recorded qualification matches on Daly. Counting replayed matches, they were 12/13 qualification matches (match 81 was replayed twice, and they missed the 4th rotor in the first of the replays). Their first official failed 4th rotor came in QF4-1, when 910’s gear mechanism broke, and even then the final gear got on the airship (just with one second too few to get it spinning up).
I’ll take a capable ground intake gear runner over a passive gear runner with slightly better stats. There were just too many gears lying around in the feeder zone at the end of many matches, even at the highest levels; these were easy pickings for an opposing alliance with ground intake in the endgame and resulted in many come-from-behind 4 rotor wins.
I disagree. If a robot with no floor pickup is putting up more gears a match than a bot with a floor pickup it means 1 of 2 things.
The bot with no pickup is crazy fast at cycling gears.
The bot with a floor pickup is slow at picking gears up/putting them on the peg.
I think an alliance needs 1 floor pickup to prevent the opposing alliance from spitting gears out of the feeder. As long as you have 1 bot with a floor pickup I wouldn’t pick another if a more capable feeder loaded bot is available.