[LEFT]Sacramento- 100, 604, 1323, 3256[/LEFT]
ha ha yeah hopfully our mini bot points will creep up tomorrow
Not sure what a bahookey is 
, but for the record, we never claimed we didn’t have floor pickup, only that it wasn’t necessary to have a really good robot.
Looks like 234 has a new fast minibot. They will not only be a team to watch this week, but at St. Louis with that new minibot.
Team 365 is dominating MD right now
15 pts robot ,16 pts minibot
probably inflating the the teams its been paired with too
Team 1484 in TX is worth watching
11 pt robot, 10 pt minibot
for boiler:
292
18 pt robot, 13 pt minibot
234
16 pt robot, 12 pt minibot
again the pts are fairly low because they are inflating their teammates, at the end of today I should have better pt values
How do you have a 16, 12, and 13 point minibot?
Thats their estimated value right now. I have an algorithm that pulls out:
ETC: estimated teams contribution
ERC: estimated robots contribution
EMC: estimate minibot contribution
These may be off right now, because of point inflation.
1114 at the end of qualifiers had a 33 pt robot and a 14 pt minibot,
meaning they alone were attributed to on average 47 points per match.
The end up being a good metric of both how good and how reliable a robot was.
I want to eliminate every teams 1 or 2 lowest scores, but the logistics of that are a little tough.
I’ll be very interested to see the Data once all of the Friday matches are over.
No offense, but using practice match data to rank teams is probably not the greatest system…
971 competes in week 5.
1868 is definitely a contender at Sacramento.
Oh I didn’t intend those rankings to be a true ranking of the teams.
I just wanted to show a few teams that were already putting up big #s in the practice matches. Putting up #s in practice matches is a very good sign, as most teams are still working out the kinks at that point. We’ll see at the end of today how those teams I picked yesterday did today…
Also ETC only looks at qualifying matches, I was just curious if I used it to measure practice matches what the outcome would be. I also figured there wasn’t much harm in saying check out a team. Where as come day 3 if you say a team is a good team, your metrics better be pretty certain of it.
I am working on a little algorithm to act as a alliance selection aid. Obviously accuracy would be much more important at this point than in the case of a heads up.
I think the #s are very important, especially after looking at FRCTop25, in which team 217 is very low ranked, where I would pick them over almost any other team (except 1114).
PR tends to swing the view of many people, having a good number to reference may make teams, that are less visible rise to the top.
Also as it differentiates between minibots and robots, it would help to pick a team thats a better match for your alliance. Again this would be used in collaboration with scouting information.
What makes you feel 217 is ranked too low?
Looking at their contributions they are in the top 5 tier IMO.
going through the ETCs
1114: 47
217: 41
2056: 39
111:38
148: 37
The top 5 are IMO in a tier of their own.
(I don’t have 254’s ETC, I really wish I did…)
33: 32
However 33 has emphasized PR and their double cap pushing them into the top 5
217 explicitly chose not to do any PR and keep themselves out of the limelight. However, according to my #s they are the only team with a top 10 minibot and a top 10 robot.
Again I believe 217,2056,111, and 148 are interchangeable.
1114 is in a league of its own.
The difference between 33 and 217 is really the minibot. 217s is worth 17 where as 33s is worth 9
Are you keeping live stats for this weekend? 118 has been jaw-droppingly impressive this weekend. They put up 78 unassisted points in their first match… then they did it again in the 2nd*!
Their OPR has been north of 70 all day, I’m curious to see what their ETC is.
*Someone might’ve helped feed them tubes in the 2nd match, but for the first match they were the only team on their alliance that made it to the field.
I actually think it is easier for a single robot to look good and score a lot when there isn’t another robot trying to score at the same. I’ve seen 118 twice (as well as several other boring Lone Star matches) and think they have benifited from a lack of scorers and the isolation. I think their most impressive improvement is their new deployment.
Yeah if they have a new minibot deployment. They will be a monster.
Overall for 2011:
etc: 30
erc: 21
emc: 8
total etc goes across all Q matches (including multiple events)
if you look at the contributions on a match by match basis
they are according to that event.
Their still top 25, but Q61 hurt them pretty bad
Q18
etc 46
erc 28
emc 18
Q26
etc 37
erc 17
emc 21
Q35
etc 42
erc 23
emc 19
Q43
etc 45
erc 23
emc 21
Q53
etc 33
erc 18
emc 15
Q61
etc 9
erc 9
emc 0
??? what happened in Q53 and Q61?
Detroit:
FIRST 1023
ETC: 38
robot: 18
minibot: 21
Bayou:
FIRST 456
ETC: 31
robot: 24
minibot: 7
St Louis
FIRST 1985
ETC: 29
robot: 15
minibot: 15
FIRST 3284
ETC: 30
robot: 11
minibot: 19
340 is kickin’ bot at Chesapeake… (And I’m not just saying that because they’re a fellow Bausch + Lomb team – they look very impressive!)
217 doesnt impress me much this year 
yes they have a great robot but it’s not the best I would say 33, 16, 148, 1918,and 548 (there’s a few more I just can’t think right now) idk it much just me…please 217 prove me wrong
I agree with you 100%. Don’t even bother watching us the rest of the season.