New Affirmatives at the TOC: How Did They Fare?
There were substantially fewer new cases read at this year’s TOC than in the recent past. But how did they do? I would like to compile a comprehensive list—the following is what I have so far:
Head Royce, Round 1, vs. Rowland Hall AF, LOSS
St. George’s, Round 1, vs. Wayzata, LOSS
Ashland, Round 2, vs. Lexington CS, LOSS
St. Francis AP, Round 2, vs. Head Royce, LOSS
GDS, Round 3, vs. Kinkaid, LOSS
St. George’s, Round 3, vs. Westwood, LOSS
Pembroke HV, Round 4, vs. CPS PT, LOSS
Glenbrook South KS, Round 5, vs. Rowland Hall AF, LOSS
McDonogh, Round 5, vs. Woodward, LOSS
St. Mark’s, Round 5, vs. Glenbrook North MP, LOSS
Eden Prairie, Round 6, vs. Dallas Jesuit, LOSS
Rowland Hall FT, Round 6, vs. Pembroke HV, LOSS
Whitney Young, Round 6, vs. Kinkaid, LOSS
Pembroke HV, Round 7, vs. Chattahoochee VW, LOSS
Woodward, Octafinals, vs. Rowland Hall AF, LOSS
Chattahoochee CR, Octafinals, vs. Westminster, LOSS
Glenbrook South DT, Octafinals, vs. Bronx, LOSS
Gulliver Prep, Round 1, vs. MBA, WIN
Harker PM, Round 1, vs. Rowland Hall FT, WIN
Oak Park-River Forest, Round 1, vs. Harker, WIN
Westwood MT, Round 4, vs. MBA, WIN
Edina, Round 5, vs. Grapevine, WIN
New Trier, Round 5, vs. CPS, WIN
Ashland, Round 6, vs. Damien FV, WIN
Westminster, Round 6, vs. Chattahoochee, WIN
Woodward, Round 6, vs. Bronx, WIN
New Trier, Round 7, vs. Chattahoochee CR, WIN
Pembroke BS, Round 7, vs. CR Washington, WIN
Westminster, Quarterfinals, vs. Bronx Science, WIN
Please use the comments to post additions/corrections using this format (team reading the new aff, the round, vs. opposing team, WIN/LOSS).
Harker PM, Round 1, vs. Rowland Hall FT, WIN
bill batterman has to be numbers game. no one as dorky. no one else believes numbers are as indicative of debate trends either.
@Malgor
I’m not Numbers Game, believe it or not.
And FWIW, I don’t think the numbers are determinative: I’m just curious to know how new affirmatives fared at the TOC. If they lost overwhelmingly (which I think is the case), that doesn’t mean “therefore don’t read new affs”… it just means “hmmm… probably worth thinking about what other teams did wrong so that we don’t repeat their errors”.
Edina ran a new advantage Round 2 vs GBN and lost
Edina ran a new Aff (Social Security) Round 5 vs Grapevine and won
St George’s also did Round 1 vs Wayzata and lost
Ashland BM vs. Damien VF Rd 6, WIN
Rowland Hall-St. Mark’s FT v Pembroke Hill VH Rd 6 – Loss
Pembroke Hill VH v Hooch WV Rd 7 – Loss
Pembroke Hill BS v CR Wash CK Rd 7 – Win
I’m interested in these stats. They’re tough to filter, though, because of correlation/causation problems. Teams tend to run new affs when they think they need a game changer because they’re in a bad or at least risky place. It’s rare to bust a new aff when you’re already expected to win – so the win % is automatically going to be deflated.
The totally geeky approach would control for this by calculating a given team’s win expectation going in.
(Numbers Game is actually the little-known “third Chung,” Dorkwon.)
GBS KS(new aff) vs. RHSM AF Round 5-loss
yeah but we lost on “new aff’s bad”
St. Francis KR new aff against Bronx Science – LOSS.
Edit: Round 1
Rowland Hall FT, Round 6, vs. Gulliver AT, WIN