paper: FIRST Championship History Results


#1

Thread created automatically to discuss a document in CD-Media.

FIRST Championship History Results
by: Jim Zondag

This is a compilation of elimination results from the FRC Championship from 2001-2010

In an effort to answer the question “who is the team of the decade?”, I put this together from my history database. I like numbers, and I thought we should go to the numbers to answer this question.

This sheet applies FiM developed point metrics to the Championship Elimination results over a 10 year period. It provides a complete list of results for all 395 teams who have played in Eliminations at the CMP over the last decade. It provides 2 results for each team: The total points earned over 10 years, and a time derated summation.
BTW: Team #67 comes out on top in both methods.

Championship_History_Data.xlsx (885 KB)
Championship_History_Data_2011.xlsx (1.05 MB)
Championship_History_Data_2012.xlsx (1.27 MB)
Championship_History_Data_2013_V2.xlsx (1.81 MB)


#2

Why does the data on your graph for 1114 start in 2002 if their rookie year was not until 2003?


#3

I see two errors off the bat in the 2009 Archimedes alliance selection:

Alliance 2 was 1503/1538/1649
Alliance 6 was 488/118/343


#4

They are shown as 0 prior to 2003. The line just connects the 0 in 2002 to the value in 2003.


#5

3 posts and not one Thank You?

Jim,

Thank you for posting this! Although the numbers aren’t what matter, it is always fun to look at stats, just like in any other competition/sport.

Any chance you could add 97, 98 and 99 tabs? Not to calculate into your analysis, just so all that information will be in one place.

Thanks again,
Eric


#6

Thanks Jim for putting this together. Couldn’t you have picked a factor that put 33 in the Top 10?

The waiting factor Jim used is pretty neat. If you ask yourself “how much influence should history have”?
For the “team of the decade”, it should probably not have a weighting factor, but if you are curious as to the trend, the effect of weighting is very interesting. The 0.66 weighting allows for:
Current: 1
Last year: 0.66
2 years ago: 0.66*0.66=44%
3 years ago: 0.66^3=29%
4 Years ago: 0.66^4=20%

Jim picked this factor as it best followed the “Student cycle” of 4 years. Not only do you loose those students, but you may also loose some really great parent involvement.

This factor also helps up and coming teams like 1625 and 2056 get the respect due to them. For instance 1625 is just 1 ranking position below 33 even though total points over 10 years, they are less than 50%.

The weighting factor is kind of fun to look at. You can play around with different weightings and see the effect. If you go much lower than 50%, then history really has very little to do with the ranking. For example if you had the same result 2 years in a row then scoring would be 1+0.5 which means that last year has less than 33% influence on your current standing.

P.S. Very cute with the color scheme. There is a way to do Tie-die markers if you are interested.


#7

very cool. Thanks for posting this database.


#8

Thanks, I saw some data about Team 85 I could not have found on the bluealliance


#9

Thanks Jim for posting this great data base!!!

I’d like to throw a shout out to teams 217, 111, 254, 469, 33, 71, and 175, attending Championship 10 years in a row is an accomplishment, never mind making the finals every YEAR OF A DECADE!!!.. Thats an amazing accomplishment…I’m floored…

Thanks again Jim,


#10

lol…I guess we’re the “Go Big or Go Home” team of FIRST!

2 Elimination appearances…2 World Championships

This sheet is awesome! Thank you for putting in the effort to compile the information. I especially like the weighting factor - it really levels the playing field between “rookies” and vets.


#11

Looking through the data some interesting things struck me.

All 4 #1 seeds have never made it to Einstein, however in 2007 no #1 seeds made Einstein.

2007 Also produced the lowest seed champion with #8, also the only 8 seed to ever advance to Einstein.

In general it looks like 1 and 2 seeds are most successful at advancing from their division.

7 teams have been in 10 consecutive elimination rounds at the championship.

6 Teams now have 2 or more championships during this decade where as only1 team had multiple wins for the first 18 years of FIRST. All multiple champions other than 71 have won their second since 2008.

2 Teams have won back to back championships.

3 Teams have at least 3 consecutive appearances on Einstein.

Teams with multiple trips to Einstein teams that have won are bolded:
6: 177
5: 67, 217
4: 71, 233
3: 25, 60, 111, 175, 254, 469
2: 33, 64, 144, 173, 294, 494, 503, 968, 1114, 1126, 1218

~0.66% of FRC Teams registered each year make the Championship.
~1.26% of all FRC Teams registered this year have made Einstein more than once.
~.678% of all teams ever registered has made Einstein more than once.

58 teams have made Einstein once for a total of 81 unique team numbers appearing in the “Final Four” meaning ~2.39% of all teams have made the final field at some point since the current format for the championship started in 2001.

I’m amazed you able to collect all this great data, thanks for posting it.


#12

I have updated this championship history database with the 2011 Results.
Congrats to Wildstang for moving into 1st place overall on the weighted history scale. :slight_smile:


#13

Jim,

Thank you! I alway love looking into this data and trying to determine which team is #1. Congratulations to Wildstang for taking over the title…for this year. :wink:

One error I noticed was, in the data for Archimedes you have 2106 instead of 2016.

Also, I am not exactly sure how the weighted data is calculated but we seem to be taking a significant dive in value compared to other past year champions, even though we had similar performances. I guess when you pull ahead by so much, the expectations are that much higher.

Interestingly enough 217 is showing a decline, even though they did better this year than last year. Yet, 469 shows an improvement even though they declined compared to last year.

Interesting, thanks.


#14

Thanks for posting such an interesting database.

I noticed a few mistakes though, it seems that the database has us (816) listed as the 11th pick in the Curie 09 draft, when we were the 6th Alliance Captain. Also I believe the draft position of 1771 is wrong as well. Probably won’t change anything, but it caught my eye.


#15

Really nice paper.
I guess 111 is up there in the ranks with 67, 3-time world champs. :stuck_out_tongue: Congrats again, guys.


#16

I think that 67 ran into the problem of not having room to improve, appearances in the Einstein finals in a row is tough to top, 217 benefits from having a down year last year (if you can call division finalist a down year).

If I wanted to calculate 78’s ranking including when they were part of 121 can I just add their 11 year derated points? I assume I can because there is no overlap in the years they made eliminations (121 made it 220-the split, 78 made it the two years since the split), including results before the split 78 jumps up to 13/14 with 33 and 330.


#17

Yes, in 2009, 1771 was the #1 pick draft selection on Curie


#18

Thanks for the updates. I reposted this file with a couple of updates to the 2009 tab. In 2009, we had someone record all the alliance pairings, but I couldn’t ever find the notebook they were written in when we got back from Atlanta. I thought I had all the corrections when I posted this last year, but perhaps not.

This is one of my biggest beefs with FIRST’s data: the draft order is very important but is not presented anywhere in the official data. Bizarre.

Adam, the weighted average is really just a guess. Obviously history matters in overall team quality assessments, but stuff that happened 10 years ago is clearly much less relevant than what happened this year. The weighted average uses a 2/3 (66.7%) derating for each year. Thus if you got 50 points this year, it would still be worth 33 point next year, 22 points the year after that, etc. More details on the “Notes” tab. It will help boost your score way up if you do good things consecutively (like say, winning the Championship twice in a row :slight_smile: ). Kind of like bowling.

Why 66.7%? It seems about right based on my judgement, 50% seems too low, but this is a hard thing to prove mathematically.

In 67’s case, you had 161 points acculated last year, the highest ever, which are now worth 107 (-54) this year, plus 25 more this year = 132.
217, while outperforming last year, still lost a little ground due to continued derating of their 2008 & 2009 peak data.
The best score possible if you use this system is 198, but you would need to be world champion for 10 years straight to achieve this.

If anyone wants to play around with this, just change the value in cell Z1 on tab “11 year history results” and resort the results. Higher makes the totals linger longer, small makes them decay faster. Fun with math.

Regardless, there is no doubt that the small group of teams at the top are the very best in the world. Congrats to you all!


#19

Attached is the updated Championship History Results Spreadsheet.
I have included all of the results of CMP Elimination rounds for 2012, it now includes 12 years of data.

Team #67 moves back into first place on both the Total Points Accumulated, and the Annually Derated Total. Team HOT is awesome as always.

439 teams have played in the CMP elimination rounds since 2001 out of 1184 total possible openings in this 12 year period.

The strongest indication that a team will play in next year’s CMP Elimination rounds is whether they played in this years Elimination rounds. If only the FRC enrollment system allowed a better way to get everyone to the event, this would be even more true. It is tragic that 3 of our all time top 20 could not even get in to the 2012 CMP.

Enjoy.


#20

Thank you Jim! This data is spectacular. It is almost impossible to find any data regarding years before 2003.

Sooo much detail!