…except for ball average and ball total.
stats don’t lie- unless the data is bad 
visit:
http://www.soap108.com/2002/stats/eventlevel/index.cfm
Still awaiting VA, TX, and OH data…
Later,
SOAP Team 
www.soap108.com
i dont really agree with that, the scores may have been lower but the quality of play was much more interesting
*Originally posted by soap108 *
**Still awaiting VA, TX, and OH data…
**
do you have a reasonable expectation of getting this data soon?
Hey SOAP Team,
Let me start by saying that I truly repect all the work you put into your site and the program.
I do have a slight problem with the title of this thread though. While the stats doesn’t lie, it is your interprertation of the stats to define “better” that I question. If your definition of “better” is higher scoring in certain areas and not in others (as defined by you), then yes, you can use the stats to support you thought that Kennedy was “better” than LI.
I would suggest that there may be a flaw in that though, as defense can make a game more exciting (even though scores may be lower), which may be others definition of “better”. Do you find the All Start Basketball and Hockey games (which are typically higher scoring than the norm due to no one playing defense) better than the playoffs? I don’t.
For example, I mentor Team 358 (FESTO/Hauppauge), and our strategy is defense. Due to our strategy causing lower scoring games for our competitors, we only ranked 11th in QP, but we won 8 out of 10 qualifying matches. We then went on to play Saturday afternoon, and in some very exciting matches, beat the alliance with the #1 and 3 ranked teams in the Semi-Finals (with all due respect to both of them, as they are excellent teams, and anyone could have won on any given day).
I guess in the end, “better” is in the eye of the beholder. I would caution you in the word’s use though, as when something claimed to be better, it implies that the other is worse.
Regards,
Scott358
PS - I have a lot of respect for LIRudie’s opinion, since 311 competed in both!.
Scores say nothing. At LI we absolutly sucked during Qualifying cause we were worrying about QP TOO much. So in our second to last qualifying macth we completely blew the other team out like 60-10. WE knew that our robot is a dominating bot, not a win by 1 bot.
At the end of the qualifying we were ranked like 26th. But teams realized that out robot could win. And we were picked by the 4rd seed. We completly dominated the finals not losing a single match and won it all.
The qualifying ranks mean absolutly nothing. YOu have to look at what a robot can do how how reliably they can do it. Don’t just look at whether they win or lose. Assign a team member to watch every one of their matches and look for their abilities.
Did everyone notice the question mark “?” in this threads’ title?
The title was meant to spur discussion…which it is doing to a degree…
Is anyone out there interested in brainstorming on a “fun” formula to try and determine the “best event”, statistically speaking.
pls,pls,pls, treat the phrase “best event” as you would a team’s ranking in the qualifying rounds. often the “best” team (whatever that means) isn’t in the top 8.
KA-108
*Originally posted by Joe Ross *
**do you have a reasonable expectation of getting this data soon? **
i guess you could say we have a resonable expectation of getting the data,
…now it’s a Q of when!
KA-108 