Is this just a colloquial thing, or do teams win more at home? Is it more effective in different sports/leagues/types of stadiums? Is it just a big conspiracy to sell tickets?
On MNF the other night, they showed how Denver’s teams (Broncos, Rockies, Avalanche, Nuggets) are all well over .500 at home (mile high, you see), even when they have an overall losing record that year. That’s the only one I know for sure. Having lived in the Denver area (actually Lakewood, about 1200’ above Denver) for a long time (tho not now), I always outlasted my out of state friends when hiking, rock climbing, skiing…
I wish I had written down the statistics as they showed them, 'cause it was impressive.
I remember from reading Bill James’ books in the 1980’s that the overall winning percentage of home teams in baseball historically was about 55%.
My guess is that football would have the most significant home field advantage among the major sports.
In football, the home field advantage is generated largely due to the crowd noise when the visiting team is on offense. The noise may sometimes cause miscommunications among members of the visiting offense, which can result in busted plays. Also, if the quarterback gets confused or can’t communicate with his teammates, he may have to burn timeouts, which can be costly if his team has to stop the clock toward the end of the half. If the game is played inside a dome or the visiting quarterback is rather inexperienced, this effect may be magnified.
Among major pro sports, the largest home field advantage, by a wide margin, is in basketball. The difference in home and road records in the NBA is astounding.
Hockey is right up there too. For one thing, the ice is different in every stadium, so skating where you practice and are comfortable helps a lot.
It’s not very common that a hockey team finishes with a worse record at home than on the road.
Try football (soccer). UK Premiership as of today, home teams are 66-38-30 (W-L-D). That’s a huge home advantage: 63.5% of games won were won by the home team.
I started a previous thread about this topic about six months ago: Home Field Advantage.
There are some interesting statistics in that thread as well as a study I found that showed that referees watching videos of English Premier League matches were much more reluctant to penalize the home team if they could hear the crowd noise.
I believe there probably is some home field advantage; but the example you gave with Denver is because of their height above see level. Their opponents have a very hard time breathing and get winded quicker, therefore it gives an advantage to the players who are more experienced playing in that climate.
It doesn’t need to be a highly scientific study to determine if there is a homefield advantage in sports. You just have to look at W-L records.
Among major sports in North America, baseball usually has the least predominant home field advantage. I think much of that stems from the influence of the pitcher in the game. A good pitcher is almost always a good pitcher no matter where he pitches unless there is some extreme environmental change, such as playing in Denver. Some parks favor hitters and some favor pitchers, but it’s not that often that a park favors one particular type of pitcher over another. (It does happen, but more often than not, it balances out.)
In football, I don’t think the crowd noise is the big problem, but more the unfamiliarity of the place. Football teams don’t take that many road trips and sometimes only see a stadium every 3-4 years.
In basketball, the crowd noise is more intense and I think is more likely to take a road team out of its rhythm and style of playing basketball.
In hockey, the home ice advantage is distinct because the home team gets to make the last line change which means that the home team almost always has the players it wants on the ice against the other team. The visitor’s #1 line always has to play against the home team’s best defensive line, while the home team’s #1 line usually gets to play against the weakest defensive line for the visitors.
Since he joined the Packers, Brett Favre has a record of 71-12. And since he has started every game that’s the Packers’ home record since Game 3 of the '92 season.
I’d say that’s a pretty clear case of home field advantage.
Now where’s that cheesehead smiley…
Remember that the home team always winning doesn’t necessarily mean they have an advantage. For instance if better teams had bigger stadiums, they might play at home more.
I think most games have home/away matches, but maybe not all.
Jeff Sagarin who writes sports ratings for USA Today seems to be the one who decides the “homefield advandage handicaping system”.
This years edge is 1.89 points for NFL hometeams. I don’t know how this number is derived, but here is the link!!
Sorry, here is the link:
In baseball, the home team also gets to bat last. If the score is tied and they score in the bottom of the ninth (or extra innnings), they win. If the visiting team scores, the home team has a chance to tie it or win it. This extra shot is also part of it.
That is 1.89 times the teams unique ranking!
I don’t believe that the home team in baseball wins games at any rate higher than games that go 9 innings. It’s likely to be a lower rate since extra inning games have a greater tendency to be decided on a fluke play.
For the record, here are some figures:
ML Baseball, 2002 season, home records for all teams:
1314-1111 = 54% home advantage (home teams win 54% of all games)
NFL, 2001-2001 season:
136-112 = 55% home advantage
I wasn’t able to find full season records from last year that gave home-away records for the NBA and NHL, but the current records are:
NHL: 123 (W) - 96 (L) - 37 (T) - 10 (OTL) = 54% (ignoring ties and counting overtime losses as losses)
NBA: 92-50 = 65%
I believe that the full season home advantages for both hockey and basketball typically are higher than the above figures, c. 60% for hockey and approaching 70% for basketball.
As I said in the previous thread, my own pet theory is that these differences in home field advantange are linked at least in part to the importance of adrenaline and exertion in the game as opposed to concentration. Crowd support can easily help push a basketball player to greater levels of exertion. Baseball, on the other hand, depends far more on concentration in pitching and batting. Crowd noise can do little to help performance and in fact be as much of a distraction to the home player as to the visitor.
You might want to take a look at Clemson’s 70% win record at Death Valley. Note however that Florida State completely bucks the trend when playing there.
I found a study, that I cannot link to for propietary reasons, that from 1979-1990, the home team in extra inning baseball games won at a .522 percentage.
If you expand the meaning of extra innings to just include games where the score was tied after 8 or 9 innings, then the home team winning percentage for the same time period went up to .531