More interesting numbers...specific to big-ball matches

Posted by Jessica Boucher at 03/26/2001 3:55 PM EST

Student on team #237, Sie-H2O-Bots, from Watertown High School and Eastern Awning Systems & The Siemon Company.

Ok, so all I’ve really done this weekend is crunch numbers…and since the big-ball matches average score/time didnt get much response, I’m posting some that are a little more…intriguing. :wink:

These are the teams from each regional who recieved the large ball multiplier the most frequently.

Regional: Team number (number of times big ball multiplier scored)

VCU: 384 (4), 497 (4)
KSC: 351 (6), 34 (5), 312 (5), 234 (5)
Long Island: 545 (5), 105 (3), 190 (3), 270 (3)
West Michigan: 71 (5), 74 (5), 67 (3), 85 (3), 302 (3), 535 (3)
Lone Star: 418 (8), 34 (6), 438 (6)
NYC: 571 (5), 371 (4), 713 (3)
NJ: 103 (6), 175 (6), 203 (5), 211 (5), 191 (4), 174 (4)
UTC: 140 (4), 230 (4), 562 (4), 131 (3), 67 (3)
SoCal: 259 (4), 698 (4), 634 (3), 691 (3)
Midwest: 234 (8), 101 (6), 71 (5), 108 (5)
Silicon Valley: 330 (5), 376 (5), 254 (4)
Philly: 103 (6), 165 (6), 56 (5), 134 (5), 293 (5), 466 (5)
Great Lakes: 280 (5), 74 (3), 85 (3)

I checked these numbers twice, but if I screwed up in the counting anywhere, please just let me know.

So…my question is, what does this data show? Does it show the best big-ball pickers? Or rather, does it show that teams dont care what ball gets picked up? Or both?

-Jessica B, #237

Posted by ChrisH at 03/26/2001 11:05 PM EST

Engineer on team #330, Beach 'Bots, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA JPL, J & F Machine, Raytheon, et al.

In Reply to: More interesting numbers…specific to big-ball matches
Posted by Jessica Boucher on 03/26/2001 3:55 PM EST:

I can only speak for the SoCal and Silly Cone Valley regionals. But in my not so humble opinion your list includes most of the best ball handlers there. The only one missing was team 60, but they spent most of their time trying to balance two goals. When they put their mind to it they could do an exceptional job with a big ball.

Team 330 generally made sure that our ball was one of the ones we placed on a goal. We figured we needed every point we could get. Besides nobody objected if we placed our own ball. Once we placed another team’s ball because it was easier to get to. In practice we even removed a ball and placed our own, but it was just to see if we could do it.

Chris Husmann
Team 330 the Beach’Bots

Posted by joe frick at 03/26/2001 11:48 PM EST

Engineer on team #466, bartram braves, from john bartram high school and sheet metal workers local union 19.

In Reply to: More interesting numbers…specific to big-ball matches
Posted by Jessica Boucher on 03/26/2001 3:55 PM EST:

hi jess, i found your data interesting, however i feel that if everyone delivered what they promised you would probably find these numbers much higher. I feel as though the teams need to get on the same page with thier alliances. there is no boasting in this game, we all have to work together, however as i found in the philly regional many teams said they could do certain tasks but failed to deliver, honesty would be the best policy, does anyone agree with me that honesty would be best if you want to bring your GPA to where it should be. BE HONEST WITH YOUR ALLIANCES AND WE’LL ALL PROFIT FROM IT

Posted by Kevin at 03/27/2001 12:50 PM EST

Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monsters, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

In Reply to: Re: More interesting numbers…specific to big-ball matches
Posted by joe frick on 03/26/2001 11:48 PM EST:

Personally, I found this to be much more true of earlier regionals than the later ones. People have been much more open, honest, and willing to work together after seeing what scores are possible.

: hi jess, i found your data interesting, however i feel that if everyone delivered what they promised you would probably find these numbers much higher. I feel as though the teams need to get on the same page with thier alliances. there is no boasting in this game, we all have to work together, however as i found in the philly regional many teams said they could do certain tasks but failed to deliver, honesty would be the best policy, does anyone agree with me that honesty would be best if you want to bring your GPA to where it should be. BE HONEST WITH YOUR ALLIANCES AND WE’LL ALL PROFIT FROM IT

Posted by Ed Sparks at 03/27/2001 7:40 AM EST

Engineer on team #34, The Rockets, from Bob Jones High / New Century High and DaimlerChrysler.

In Reply to: More interesting numbers…specific to big-ball matches
Posted by Jessica Boucher on 03/26/2001 3:55 PM EST:

Great job Jessica,

I believe this list represents most of the better ball handlers. My reasoning is that although I witnessed several machines (KSC & LoneStar) that can lift balls, very few could carry this task out quickly and reliably. Looking at the number of successful placements vs the number of rounds indicates to me that these machines are at least reliable and perform the task as advertised. One thing that your data does not show is placement of balls reguardless of color. We placed several balls of another color to maximize the allience score and even played a few rounds where we were to place 2 balls. I think this type of list helps us to “find” those teams who can really do what they claim which has been a major problem for us (and most of you I’m sure). What we need now is an analysis of those bridge balancers!

See 'ya in a week

Ed
Team #34

Posted by Ellery at 03/27/2001 8:26 AM EST

Engineer on team #191, X-CATS, from Joseph C. Wilson High School, Rochester NY and Xerox Corporation.

In Reply to: More interesting numbers…specific to big-ball matches
Posted by Jessica Boucher on 03/26/2001 3:55 PM EST:

Hi Jess!

Thanks for the stats… but definitely it doesn’t show the whole picture. People will have to take into account the number matches played also with the reliability of the rest of the teams during the match. I know we’ve always placed our big balls on the goal but during the attempts to balance the goals from our alliances some of these balls got knocked out. SO truthfully the numbers only reflect the alliance as a whole in completing the tasks and not the particular Ball handler team. This can probably account for most teams.

Posted by Deej- T190 at 03/27/2001 10:12 AM EST

Engineer on team #190, Gompeii, from Mass Academy and WPI.

In Reply to: Re: More interesting numbers…specific to big-ball matches
Posted by Ellery on 03/27/2001 8:26 AM EST:

What also doesn’t go into account are teams that put other colored big balls on top of the goals. I know in Long Island and Hartford, there were times when T190 put up a big ball that wasn’t ours because another ball was closer and would make pickup and delievery that much faster. Our whole game plan is to put the points up there, and if its our teams color, great, but more importantly its the 10pts x whatever multiplier that is worth more to us…

Posted by P.J. Baker at 03/27/2001 9:25 AM EST

Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

In Reply to: More interesting numbers…specific to big-ball matches
Posted by Jessica Boucher on 03/26/2001 3:55 PM EST:

First off, a big thanks to Jessica for putting these numbers out there. I agree that the list contains MOST of this year’s best big ball machines.

I would hope that most folks would consider 177 worthy of being on the list as well. During the seeding rounds at UTC, we mostly tried to balance goals and only scored our big ball once, but we were drafted by GaelForce as their main big ball machine and had great success. I’m sure that there are others out there with similar stories (Team 60 is one example).

Sorry for the shameless self promotion, but with the odds as long as they are going to be at EPCOT, you’ve got to get the word out about your machine.

Good Luck to all! See you in Florida.

P.J. Baker
Team #177

Posted by Michael “Special K” Krass at 03/27/2001 9:38 AM EST

Other on team #271, Mechanical Marauders, from Bay Shore High School and Verizon.

In Reply to: Big Ballers hiding as double balancers
Posted by P.J. Baker on 03/27/2001 9:25 AM EST:

Equally shameless self-promotion ahead . . .

I’d also hope to think that some people considered our machine (The Glittery Swan, or one of a thousand other names) an excellent big ball machine. It just seems that we’ve found our combination of limbo-ing doorstop to balance the bridge was a bit more useful at the regionals. We’re hoping that by telescoping to 13’ with a sign that says, “Pick Us”, we’ll get some attention :slight_smile:

~ Michael, who thinks the team’s robot is just too good to be overlooked.

: I would hope that most folks would consider 177 worthy of being on the list as well. During the seeding rounds at UTC, we mostly tried to balance goals and only scored our big ball once, but we were drafted by GaelForce as their main big ball machine and had great success. I’m sure that there are others out there with similar stories (Team 60 is one example).

: Sorry for the shameless self promotion, but with the odds as long as they are going to be at EPCOT, you’ve got to get the word out about your machine.

: Good Luck to all! See you in Florida.

: P.J. Baker
: Team #177

Posted by Jason Flanagan at 03/27/2001 11:22 PM EST

Student on team #250, Dynamos, from Shenendehowa HSE and General Electric, Verizon, .

In Reply to: Re: Big Ballers hiding as double balancers
Posted by Michael on 03/27/2001 9:38 AM EST:

Oooo ooo me too!

Team 250 also has the ability to handle big balls, although our main focus was double balancing at regionals being one of 2 good double balancers there. We have a nice telescoping arm that can place the ball right on top just like all of you. Buttt our main focus is double balancing and our amazing track system which has the best traction of any robot out there. It got us a first place trophy I think it can get us far in nats

Jay

Posted by John Prather at 03/28/2001 5:07 PM EST

Student on team #234, Cyber Blue, from Perry Meridian High School and Rolls Royce.

In Reply to: Re: Big Ballers hiding as double balancers
Posted by Jason Flanagan on 03/27/2001 11:22 PM EST:

Team 234 as you can see scored the 10% eight times at the MMR. Out of our 12 matches 2 of them were spent controlling one goal and getting it set up for the other teams(one of them we actually balanced using wildstang’s ramp,since there wasn’t another robot that could control the goal). And in another match we actually placed another teams ball. I think if we would have tried to place a big ball everytime we would have gotten it 11 out of 12. Also we never missed at the KSC Regional. Because of this accuracy of placing the big balls, and a little bit of luck, we managed to keep our averages up there and get noticed for our arm and accuracy. We were on the third place alliance at KSC and as everyone probably knows we were on the winning alliance at MMR with the 710 points. I think we have a chance to be drafted at Nationals, but it will be tough. Good luck to all and I hope we’ll see you there.

John Prather
Team 234

Posted by Michael “Special K” Krass at 03/27/2001 9:46 AM EST

Other on team #271, Mechanical Marauders, from Bay Shore High School and Verizon.

In Reply to: More interesting numbers…specific to big-ball matches
Posted by Jessica Boucher on 03/26/2001 3:55 PM EST:

: These are the teams from each regional who recieved the large ball multiplier the most frequently.

Just a note, but I think it might also be important to include a ‘success percentage’, or, at the very least, make note of how many teams each of those teams attempted to place a big ball. From my experience at the Long Island Regional, I know some of the teams you lifted tried for a big ball every match, and were only successful a few times. . .or conversely, tried few times, but were successful each time.

Jessica, I don’t know if you have data like that, but I think it would be really useful.

~ Michael, who’s posting a lot this morning.

Posted by colleen - T190 at 03/27/2001 12:55 PM EST

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science and WPI.

In Reply to: More interesting numbers…specific to big-ball matches
Posted by Jessica Boucher on 03/26/2001 3:55 PM EST:

We are on your ‘list’… but I don’t think that some of the data does disclude teams who reliably put up other teams balls… then again, it’s only data

T190 put on many more than 3 balls in Long Island, likely ditto for UTC… also… every match in the finals (both UTC and LongIsland) we put a big ball on…

It’s a cool analysis of the data, but I can see where teams would get lost and unaccounted for…

I just hope teams take the time to look and not just fly by pre-national data when it comes time for picking… lots of teams have made significant changes… and lots of teams have tried to score decent points and have had partners (not them) with trouble executing…

Cool data-- I can only hope other teams only view it as such…

Posted by Jessica Boucher at 03/27/2001 4:34 PM EST

Student on team #237, Sie-H2O-Bots, from Watertown High School and Eastern Awning Systems & The Siemon Company.

In Reply to: More interesting numbers…specific to big-ball matches
Posted by Jessica Boucher on 03/26/2001 3:55 PM EST:

Hey everyone! Thanks for your great response to the data, it certainly made my day :wink:

Anyways, I knew when I compiled this stuff that it didn’t tell the whole story…most importantly, I couldn’t include big-ball handlers in the finals, because FIRST’s data (and I used FIRST’s data to be safe) doesnt differenciate whos ball it is in the finals.

For instance, the infamous 710 round. That was done with a number of small balls that I forget ;), 2 large balls, all 4 in the end zone & 1:05 remaining. Now, upon inspection of the video, the big balls that counted were red & yellow, belonging to 71 & 234…If FIRST were giving the 10% in the finals, then those two teams would have 781, while the rest had 710…but FIRST’s data turns a blind eye to whos ball it is, and thus I can’t add finals into the data.

This is also going along with who can balance the bridge…there definetley isnt a way I can think of to come up with data for that…sure, I could count which teams werent in the end zone (and assume that they were on the bridge), but thats too unreliable for me & doesnt include off-bridge balancers.

If you want me to come up with percentages, I can do that…I just need to know how many matches were played in each regional.

To expand on this I might count the number of green balls scored, blue, red, etc…to see if there is a higher percentage of one color being scored over another.

I know my data doesnt tell the whole story, and I know that some simply beautiful ball pickers were left out (like the, as I like to describe it, “fluid” 177 machine), and I also know I can’t take into account matches where balls were knocked off…but this is the best I could do.

Any other suggestions/stuff, let me know.

-Jessica B, #237