2056’s results are astounding, they are at the very top of 3 of these lists. That caliber of play in so many aspects of the game is completely unmatched.
There are very few consistent climbers. A 50-50 climber puts you in the top 50, and you can probably count on one hand the teams that have climbed in every qual match.
There are very few consistent boulder scoring autos out there. Some of the teams on this list may have never even scored boulders in auto. It is important to recognize that although some of the teams with boulder scoring autos may be scoring 20 autonomous points, they often are contributing far less than this if they require the low bar, because they are taking that low bar spot away from other teams who might not otherwise get a cross.
That is an excellent question that my current database is ill-equipped to satisfactorily answer. Here’s my best guess, maybe in the future I will have the tools to do better.
The average breaching contribution per team is .193. That is, three average teams together would average about 57% of a breach. Thus, teams with breach contributions of 1-(2*.193) = .614 could be expected to breach every match. 54 teams meet that criterion.
Obviously, this method has some major flaws, but it should give a decent ballpark estimate.
No typo. 1024 contributed 18.63 boulder points per match at the Tippecanoe district event, and 22.33 boulder points per match at the Walker-Warren district event.
I was originally going to list both the team number and the event in these lists, but the code tags provided by CD’s text editor were being annoying, so I just dropped the event information.
For those of you who haven’t seen 4680’s robot yet, I would definitely check them out. They are probably the leading candidate for MCC this year IMHO. They have been the 6 pick and 5 captain at their first two events, respectively.
Average would not necessarily be useful since every event is different - then again, we are trying to compare all of the teams worldwide, which have competed in dozens of different events. My personal choice for list would probably be to include teams only once, with their highest calculated performance, in order to have a unique top 25.
These values are calculated in the same way that OPR values are calculated. The numbers shown indicate a given team’s average contribution to a given scoring category, which is not necessarily the amount that they themselves score in that category. The amount greater than 15 from 1876 could just be noise, but it could possibly indicate something deeper. For example, 1876 might have scaled from the side rungs, which left the easier center rung available for other climbers.
At our event this weekend we went 13 for 15 in scaling. So to say that those teams are better isn’t really correct. It just means that their alliances were better.
