I debated that and for some reason they don’t stand out in my mind as “dominant” in the same sense the other teams do so I left them off.
I do point to them as probably the most elegant robot of all time though.
They were more dominant in 2008 than 2010 and you left off the only dominant robot of 2010.
I like your list, but I would also add 469’s 2010 robot, and I would not include a team from 2012. I would say 2056, 67, 987, 469, and perhaps a few other teams were arguably just as dominant as 341 and 1717 in 2012. There really wasn’t a truly dominant robot from that year.
I would say that top teams may vary by regional area. Michigan Teams may not be “good” to west coast teams.
And you neglected to mention a number. If you are referring to 469 I disagree that they were dominant due to their need for a good scoring bot to start the cycle going quickly.
Yeah. Probably best if we all just throw some good ones out there instead of ranking them.
254,111,1114,2056
Im new to the scene so these are just the ones that Im aware of being quite good.
Any list that doesn’t include 2056 isn’t a top ten list. 14 regional wins in a row, never lost a regional, I can’t see any team top that in the recent future.
I would include 469=2010.
1503 - 2011 comes to mind for that one too.
In my own opinion: (not in any particular order other than numerical, just a list of my ten favourites)
16
33
47/51/65
67
118
245
469
1114
1717
2337
This opinion is based on my own research. I love every FRC team, but those ten teams are my favourites (as well as XaulZan11, I somewhat have a regional bias).
I think this has turned into the best robots not teams
In my opinion the best teams are clearly the hall of famers, followed by anyone who has ever won a regional chairmans award.
The only past team that was even close was 254 at 6 consecutive from their rookie year, and 2056 shattered that record 4 years ago.
469 was not by themselves dominant that year though 56-16-5 while very good is not entirely dominant. They had arguably the best robot for that particular game for eliminations.
Also
1114, 67, 71, 118, 148, 2056, 2826, 233, 2415, 314, 254, 973, 330, 177,971, 987, 1986, 469, 359, 16, 1717, 1625, 111, 33, 217. All amazing teams with track records of success.
While I admire all of them my favorite is 1717, because penguins.
There are many teams worthy of mention for robot performance but these are the ones that stand out most strongly to me.
Honorable mentions:
48, 51, 1918, 2054, 1477, 2169, 624, 234, 1983, 1538, 2046, 2337, 525… I could go on and on.
71 wasn’t dominant in quals in 2002 either but nobody will even attempt to argue that their robot was worse than the third most dominant ever.
The Hall of Fame list does a pretty good job at listing the best “teams,” just by nature of their award.
As far as on-field performance (best robot as opposed to best team), it’s a much harder question to ask. People’s views (mine included) will be heavily influenced by a number of factors including regional bias, age (I can’t tell you how good any one robot was before about 2007), experience (I find that I’m more biased towards robots that I’ve seen in person), the list goes on. There are already different metrics that attempt to answer this question in terms of robot performance (OPR, CCWM, FRC Top 25 ranking, wins, win percentage, regional wins), but the truth is that none of them are perfect. There will always be a robot that had a bad event that lowered their OPR, or a robot that got upset in elims, or a robot that doesn’t get enough exposure to be popular, or a robot that is so different from others that it’s impossible to compare them.
That being said, I always enjoy having this debate, as discussing robot merit is usually an interesting and informative topic. I just think that there will never be a true answer to the original question.
From my limited experience (Rebound Rumble and some YouTube surfing):
842
1717
1114
2056
254
67
987
341
111
16
Alright, Andrew and Ian, I think your statistics skills may be needed here. There might not be enough data going back far enough to do this but…
A 4* year moving average of OPR ranking, CCWM ranking, match win percentage and/or event win percentage (including divisions and Einstein) would be an interesting way too look at trends in team competitiveness. This evens out teams that had one really amazing year, and also top teams that had an “off” year (eg, 1114 only won one regional :eek: in 2009).
I suspect the teams that we’ll see at the top are the ones already being talked about, but there might be a few surprises. I think it’s at least a more statistically significant calculation of the “best” teams (from a competition standpoint) over time.
*I pick 4 because it’s the maximum turnover time for a high school student on a team. Other time blocks could be used
This doesn’t answer the question of the thread, but taking a look at recent FRC history, here’s an OPR-based ranking of FRC Teams over the past 5 years (2008-2012):
1114
2056
67
987
254
25
111
1717
330
469
217
I took the average of the z-scores of the average of the teams’ event OPRs. Unweighted by year or event, but each year was standardised so the data could be combined. It gave this top 11. I made it a top 11 because 217 and 469 were pretty close and there was a pretty big gap after 217. I only have easy access to the past 5 years of data. 1114 and 2056 were ahead of the pack by far. As for OPR, I think it’s more trustworthy than any other easily accessible measure of success. You can find a more detailed break-down on CD-Media. That includes methodology, a summary of the more interesting data points, and the spreadsheet with ALL the teams.
Who would you say are the top two? I’m guessing 469 in 2010 would be one of them.
My guess would be 1114 in 2008.