LSE Open 2011: Statistical Fun

After the final tab was released, I had a little bit of fun playing around with the numbers to see what different things I could get from the tab data. Here’s the results of my playing around.

  1. Break by total team speaker scores
  2. Notable big individual speaker scores
  3. Team Cohesion

Break by Total Team Speaker Scores

It is often difficult to decide whether a team’s score or a team’s speaker score better reflects their standing. Here’s how it would look by Total Team Speaker Scores

1. (1) I am Debate – 842
2. (2) No Umlaut in Ubermensch – 832
3. (3) Vowel Sounds Are Supposed To Be Like That – 828
4. (5) Herne Hill C – 826
5. (9) My bid is better than yours – 821
6. (6) Not Pretty Enough For – 816
7. (10) Sherring Guy Love with Pam – 816
8. (14) Jew and Jewar – 815
9. (4) We’re Not Racist – We’re Quoting Doug – 809
10. (15) We Can Be Funny…Honest – 809
11. (7) We hate most people here – 805
12. (16) Ebony and Richard – 805
13. (11) Mixed Feelings About The Pope – 804
14. (8) Dosie – 803
15. (31) We were the judging pool – 800
16. (12) 2 Kings 10 27 – 789

Interestingly enough, there would be little if any change to the 16 breaking teams although the rankings would differ and cause a different grand final.
Notably however, is the addition of ‘We were the judging pool’ on 800 total team speaker points but on only 7 team points which would put them behind even school teams Cheney, Wales A and Wales B. This would come at the expense of Ebony and Richard who initially ranked 16th.

In this scenario, Wales A would swap spots with Cheney, coming in 29 and 31 respectively with Wales B in on 38.

Big Scores

People that received speakers scores above 85 in each round.

Fred Cowell – 88
Jack Watson – 86
Li ShengWu – 86

Mhairi Murdoch – 89
Sam BLock – 88
Jonathan Leader-Maynard – 88
Harish Natarajan – 87
Sayeqa Islam – 87
Ben Ralston – 86
Maria English – 86
Tom Hosking – 86

As debates start getting more even in skill, the scores are starting to rise. This might support the suggestion that good debaters perform better in harder debates.

None. The top scores were two 84s achieved by Hugh Burns and Jonathan Leader Maynard.

Round 3 was also incidentally the most confusing debates with many debaters uncertain of how to approach the issue given the odd motion.

Again, no-one. Top scores were Sayeqa Islam, Nathalie Smith, Li ShengWu and Pam Cohn on 84

I can’t think of a logical reason for this. The motion wasn’t particularly unconventional and the rooms would presumably be very competitive given this is round 4. One possible explanation is that many debaters were starting to switch off in-light of the social events coming up in the evening.

Sam Block – 87
Max Kasriel – 87
Fred Cowell – 86
Neil Dewar – 86

With some highly competitive rooms and breaking in the equation, top debaters once-again pick up their game.

It should be noted that Sam Block, Jonathan Leader Maynar, Li Sheng Wu, Fred Cowell and Sayeqa Islam all received two scores above 85. This phenomena would amply explain why these were also the top 5 speakers on the tab.

To be carried or not to be carried

Inspired by the introduction of the Rushab Ranvat Memorial Award for most carried debater, I sorted all the total speaker scores by team and proceeded to figure out the number of points separating the two speakers on a team.

It turned out that the greatest difference between two partners would be 80 speaker points. However, neither of the two teams involved broke. Imperial B and Untermenschen B took the honors.
The biggest difference between the two speakers of a breaking team was a much smaller 13. This was the award that ‘We hate most people here’ received.
Only two teams managed to have perfectly even speaker scores, these being Wales B and Vowels are supposed to be like that. In the case of Wales B, both speakers had 363. In the case of Vowels are supposed to be like that, both speakers had 414.