"Most Improved" Award 2015

I’d have to go with Bedford Express. They went from a 53.00 Qualification Average in their first event to a 187.75 at MSC (which they won).

1023 Bedford Express opr jumped from 27.31 at the FIM District Southfield Event to 109.4 at the FIM District Bedford Event, resulting in the highest opr gain of 82.09 globally according to our data http://team955.org/opr/?search=1023

Our first match our robot was fully functional, yet our alliance scored 0 points. Throughout that competition, our QA was 32. At MSC we had a QA of 146 and we were the 7th pick. We plan on doing much better at worlds.

548, another MSC winner, improved from 35 QA to MSC third seed and 172 QA.

I’d have to give it to FRC 955; they went from being just another meh robot in their first event to the second best robot in the PNW, mostly by adding a ramp. (Could make in a good game a capped 4 stack at Wilsonville, and were used entirely for capping (and did well at it) in their finals, while at the District Championships they made 2 capped 6 stacks, as well as another capped 4 in a good match).

Instead of focusing on their rank, im going off Qualification OPR, as i think that shows a bigger difference in how they did.
Im pulling 5 random teams that were in the PNW champs just to show the increase in points.

2471
Event 1 - 59.67
Event 2 - 62.17
DCMP - 124.58

4061
Event 1 - 35.92
Event 2 - 97.75
DCMP - 135.67

4980
Event 1 - 40.25
Event 2 - 57.83
DCMP - 137.67

360
Event 1 - 46.17
Event 2 - 78.58
DCMP - 112.58

955
Event 1 - 49.83
Event 2 - 111.58
DCMP - 137.25

most teams between their first event and the DCMP improved by about 60 points, that’s pretty impressive.

My team did very poorly at Los Angeles at Rank 63 with an avg score of 25.22, but we came back strong at Las Vegas in 8th place with an qual avg of 78.17 and an OPR of 39.07.

A small tethered ramp is what mainly increased our performance, as well as practice. We were able to get 2 stacks of 3 with a can+noodle on top consistently.

Kind of what we’d expect, even if the teams didn’t really improve at all.

Something about having to qualify to get to the champs.

Right?

Do you calculate OPRs differently than Ed Law does? According to his spreadsheet, 1023 had an OPR of 34.3 at MISouthfield.

Attached is a spreadsheet with the OPR data of all teams attending 2+ events, courtesy of the 2834 scouting database. Top 10 teams in some relevant categories shown below:
most recent OPR - first OPR:

Team	most recent OPR - first OPR
118	89.41377615
195	80.89138091
254	76.43080309
68	71.22180277
4188	67.46874949
548	66.20520947
772	66.18374463
3674	65.58625473
3309	64.78286299
3641	64.36290802

max OPR - first OPR:

Team    max OPR - first OPR
118	89.41377615
195	80.89138091
254	76.43080309
1023	74.70765145
548	71.81205704
68	71.22180277
4188	67.46874949
772	66.18374463
3674	65.58625473
3309	64.78286299

highest single event improvement:

Team	highest single event improvement
254	76.43080309
4188	67.46874949
118	64.11364287
2826	61.87918025
548	61.48874755
2502	61.07990871
1625	57.38321446
4980	56.39594579
624	56.36421916
1296	55.51354072
1671	55.24989016

Let me know if there are any errors.

OPR improvement.xlsx (310 KB)


OPR improvement.xlsx (310 KB)

Those look like Qualification Average numbers, not OPR numbers.

To be fair, that has a lot to do with the depth of the field at a district event compared to a district championships

Yes we do actually. The biggest difference is that we decided including Coop scores in the OPR calculation would be a misleading measure of a robots value in elims (since a robot that can get 40 points through coop in a certain amount of time is very likely not to be able to score 40 points in elims with that same amount of time through conventional stacking).

Our solution was to calculate sub-oprs and total them (without coop) to get a “special” OPR value which we felt was more useful (and also not readily available in other places). Now, it’s definitely not perfect as it penalizes some teams who spend time on coop they could spend scoring conventionally, but this problem is only significant for teams that are exceptionally fast at stacking and scoring (like 2056). For run-of-the-mill teams, it keeps coop from inaccurately inflating their OPR. Of course, the difference in the math for what we do vs what Ed Law does makes our values slightly different inherently, but they both run on the same foundation of linear least squares estimation that OPR is generally associated with. Adding coop sub-opr to our “special” OPR gets roughly comparable numbers. We ended up liking our numbers a lot more over say thebluealliance though, so we ran with it.

If you’re interested, head over to http://team955.org/opr. We also have a global rankings page based on our numbers here.

I am extremely proud of my team’s improvements this year as well. For the last 8 years I don’t think we have ever changed our robot throughout the season, and boy we should have. This year we made some significant improvements after each competition and it showed.

Starting off at the Pioneer Valley district event we were putting up one stack of four and another stack of three, occasionally capped. We were having trouble aligning to the chute and the totes would slide all over when stacking. Unfortunately our lift motor failed in the finals and we could only make stacks of two. Example match.

For Seneca we added aluminum tabs to make sure the top totes were aligned and meshed with the the bottom tote. We mocked them up using combination squares and replaced them with some angle. It worked great for totes, but the recycling containers would tip forward when grabbed. Two PVC four-bar guards were added to prevent our stacks from tipping. We ended up making two stacks of four, one or two capped. Example match.

At Upper Darby we brought a new top claw that would hold the RCs while stacking and redesigned the tote tabs to keep the can upright. Both worked very well and allowed us to consistently make two noodled and capped stacks of four and an uncapped stack of 2-4 totes. We saw the need to increase our output in the finals so we attempted stacks of five but the can would sometimes come out of the top claw. Example match.

Last weekend at MAR champs we made some modifications to the top claw that allowed us to easily make stacks of five totes. It worked well and we only dropped one stack/can in our first QF match. We also added two fiberglass rods in front of our claw to prevent the totes from sliding too far into the robot. They also helped align the totes surprisingly. Both of these improvements allowed us to make **two noodled and capped stacks of five and one uncapped stack of 2-6 totes **almost every match that we wanted to. Example match.

Now that our season is over, we plan on working on our three tote auto and moving the top claw up so we can make stacks of six. One of our goals for next year is to start using CAD so we can go through more design iterations on the computer instead of building.

177 should certainly be mentioned:

They went from ranking 2nd to last at their first district (Pioneer Valley) and not being selected to captaining the 7th alliance to the semifinals at their second district (Hartford).

Unfortunately, we won’t see more improvement from the Bobcats, because their season appears to have ended, but it would’ve been incredible to see what such a good team could pull off given another event.

I would definitely say team 836 The Robobees should be mentioned.

In week one at Palmetto they were ranked 63 with a qualification average of 22.22.
At there second regional (Chesapeake) they completely rebuilt their robot (and joined team tether) and were ranked 9th with a qualification average 68.56 and a playoff score of 108.43 and ended up being regional finalists.
Good Job Robobees! :slight_smile:

2175 is one, although I have that MN bias as always. I think they’re one of the first teams to ramp tether.

2502 as well, as well as 3055. Both showed great improvement from one regional to another.

Here is NE, and specifically CT I’d have to say 195 and 999. Both teams went through a rebuild after Waterbury and came out with significantly more competitive machines. After working closely with these teams over the last few seasons I can only say that they are eager to perform well on the field and constantly learning and improving.

195 finally saw the benefits of playing with pneumatics.
999 got a taste of what continuous improvement can do for them.

Completely agree with the mention of team 836.

They went from a start at palmetto that even they knew they had to overturn and ended up being easily the third best robot at Chesapeake after a COMPLETE rebuild of their bot

I would like to show this to all rookie teams or teams that are struggling. Never give up! We came into Kokomo expecting to do very well, but we were terrible. We went back to the drawing board, redesigning our lift and intake. By MSC we could make 3 full stacks of 6 cans and noodles, a vast improvement from scoring no points at Kokomo. Thanks for the post! See ya at champs :slight_smile:

Team 68 also always tries to have a positive attitude, as we are always having fun!

999 got a taste of what continuous improvement can do for them.

Totally agree Justin. 999 went from nearly not having a season in 2014…to building a great robot that season that was on the winning alliance at the Southington District Event.

They then came back strong with another GREAT robot in 2015. They get better and better at every competition. I can’t wait to see what they achieve at Championship!

195, easy.