The OPR/CCWM numbers up to Week 4 events have been posted, please see
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2174
All events up to Week 4 are now included. I also added the score of match 72 of New York and recalculated the OPR/CCWM.
If you find any error or have any questions, please let me know.
2577 was DQ’d in match 7, and 3929 was DQ’d in match 26 (Unfortunately neither the frcfms twitter nor the FIRST event pages log in which match DQ’s happen, so this data is directly from the scorekeeper)
Sorry, while I was rushing to publish the data, I forgot to sort the World OPR ranking. The rank number in column P is correct. It is just that I usually sort all the teams by OPR rank before I publish. So ignore column A.
I am not going to re-publish the data. You can sort it to how you want it.
Ed,
Do you have a more up-to-date source for the photos? The link through the blue alliance page that is listed in the instructions does not appear to be functional for this year.
Ed,
There appears to be a minor discrepancy between the OPR Results and the CCWM Results page regarding the # of Events column. It looks like the CCWM page shows the number of events completed while the OPR page shows the number the team registered for. Is this an artifact of the calculations?
Toronto West has no teams listed. Perhaps that is why 2056 and 1114 only show 2 events, but are scheduled for a 3rd.
987 has 2 events for OPR, but only 1 for WM. They dropped out of Utah, but are still scheduled to attend Las Vegas later.
Yes I found an error in the formula for counting number of events. The one on OPR page is correct. The one on CCWM page only counts up to Column CC (PineTree) which is why events from Las Vegas and after do not show up. Last year there were less events that only went up to Column CC. I don’t know why I would update the formula on one page and forgot to update it on another. It will be fixed next week.
Also I accidentally ran the macro on Toronto West because the color of the tab (green) for Week 5 is too similar to the color (blue) for Week 4. That is why the list of teams is gone. I manually copied the list of teams from last week’s version onto the page CCWM Results and OPR Results but forgot to copy the # of Events column also. Hence all Toronto West teams will show one less in the # of Events column. It does not affect anything else. This will be corrected next week after the event is over. If you cannot wait, you can copy that column from Week 3 (Version 3.0) and paste into Week 4 (Version 4.0). Sorry for the confusion.
I find it interesting that a good auto (18 pts) and a 50 point climb and dump every match would get a team into the top 10 highest OPRs.
Sorry, I forgot to include an example for you to reference. By my count, there are 274 teams with a difference between the two pages, so it’s more than just the Toronto West teams. I’ve attached a PDF of the list. Looking back at the week 3 data, the discrepancy is present there, as well.
Of course, the flip side is that the discrepancy affects nothing that I can see…
OPRvsWMCount.pdf (112 KB)
OPRvsWMCount.pdf (112 KB)
Hi Ed,
Forgive me if this has already been asked.
For an upcoming event the spreadsheet is of course mostly empty. Is there a way we could find the current OPR rankings for the teams coming to that event? I’d like to cut and paste that ranking order as a list into something I am working on.
*FWIW:
I was playing around with OPR and put together this spreadsheet.
For each of the 3,833 Qual matches played so far, it shows the actual match score and the “expected” score based on the OPR of the teams in each alliance.
*
OPR v Actual.xls (856 KB)
OPR v Actual.xls (856 KB)
Is this done with the OPR at the time of the match. Because on more than one occasion our expected score is actually lower than our OPR alone?
What was the process used to do this?
How soon could this be generated after the qualifying matches are posted?
Can’t find an easy way to say it, but:
Predicted OPR match results match actual match results 82% of the time (3142 out of 3833).
Is it more likely to be over the expected result or under the expected result.
My question is badly stated. How soon can projected results be generated once the qualifying schedule is published. How easy is this to do? I can do it myself if possible.
Averages out to zero, but that’s to be expected.
I’d say that the OPR match results are more often than not higher than the actual scores.
Interesting observation, and I got the same answer you did.
In 82% of the matches, the outcome of the match (win or lose) was the same according to the actual score and the OPR “expected” score.
Id love to see some confidence intervals on this. With a .95 CI it might be neat to try and apply it to matches this weekend before they happen and see to what accuracy an event could be predicted.