tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-905059660302177205.post5950026155580594911..comments2012-01-30T01:17:23.416-05:00Scott Albrechthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09862656571382266427noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-905059660302177205.post-66096610115796720362009-09-03T09:16:03.143-04:002009-09-03T09:16:03.143-04:00Johnny,<br />Very good question, and looking back on it, I realize it might be a little misleading in the post. Here&#39;s the actual calculation in the case of Arkansas State: They did 19.24 points better at home than on the road. Their home opponents were 12.4 points stronger, but that is not taking home field advantage into account for these teams. If we assume that these teams were 7 points better at home than on the road, the real SOS difference would be 12.4-7=5.4. So we subtract 19.24-5.4 and divide by 2 and we get approximately 6.85. The HFA(PD) values above are more precise, because I use the real HFA value for each team instead of this approximate 7 point value, but the principle is the same. Does that answer your question?<br /><br />ScottScott Albrechthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09862656571382266427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-905059660302177205.post-60335198503247081062009-09-01T20:59:53.984-04:002009-09-01T20:59:53.984-04:00Scott, your example with ark state having a differential of 19 points. and then subtract 12.4 points. but would you not divide 19 by 2 to begin with as Home helps as road games hurt. i.e assume all things/teams are equal and everyone has a 3 pt hfa. they would win their home games by an average of 3 points and lose by three points, which is a difference of 6, not 3.<br />or am I missing something?<br />thanks<br />JohnJohnnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08438922883839375108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-905059660302177205.post-35978075328591901662008-09-03T17:44:00.000-04:002008-09-03T17:44:00.000-04:00Anonymous,<BR/>Technically, the value for HFA represents the difference between a teams performance at home and "not at home" where "not at home" includes games at neutral sites and true road games (with the opponents HFA statistically removed). So, as you say, we could interpret this as badness not at home, because it is completely impossible, statistically or otherwise, to differentiate badness not at home and goodness at home. The one statement is made relative to the other (they are bad on the road because they are better at home, and vice-versa). As you note, not everyone's "not at home" is the same--Hawaii's not at home is very different from Ole Miss's not at home. One reason is that Hawaii has to travel much further than Ole Miss for their road games, and I'm fiddling with distance to adjust for that (when you take distance into account, HFA shrinks to about 2 points on average). Other reasons include travel accommodations, weather, how well fans travel, etc. and I will not be able to adjust for these differences.<BR/>Thanks for the commentScott Albrechthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09862656571382266427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-905059660302177205.post-78438571182326983822008-09-03T14:32:00.000-04:002008-09-03T14:32:00.000-04:00Just a question about your analysis. In controlling for a team's performance at home, you had only one option: the team's road games. So I assume that the control sample was the team's road games (ignoring games at neutral sites, since they are rare). My question is: couldn't we, then, interpret this list as badness on the road, as well as goodness at home? Hawaii, for example, based on the distance they must travel, is notoriously bad on the road.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-905059660302177205.post-1815891839578921182008-07-26T16:07:00.000-04:002008-07-26T16:07:00.000-04:00Scott, once again your calculations and concept are fascinating. Your posts never fail to make me think, and rethink, teams. And in this case, stadiums.<BR/><BR/>However, the one thing statistical analysis in sports cannot measure and factor is human emotion. The unmistakable feeling one gets when he/she enters into an environment that produces fear and/or intimidation. There isn't a number - a figure - you can attach to the way a group of young men's minds and bodies will react when it's time to leave the locker room and make the walk.<BR/><BR/>As a former athlete, I can feel it just sitting here thinking back on certain games in certain basketball arenas.<BR/><BR/>Take one good team. Not great, not poor. Let's say North Carolina State. First, send them to Hawaii to play. Upon their return, query the players about the travel, the meals, the field surface...you name it.<BR/><BR/>Now, send them to Baton Rouge for a Saturday night game against LSU. Ask the players the same set of questions. I can practically guarantee their responses to you will be on the order of awe when discussing the difficulty in playing at LSU, and it has nothing to do with the guys they're lining up against.<BR/><BR/>Forget the fact Hawaii is no match for LSU on the field (or, at the very least, on paper). Home Field Advantage still, after all the travel, meals and sleeping in different beds, comes down to that moment...that singular moment you walk out of the tunnel.<BR/><BR/>I have always maintained on the radio that a great home field advantage won't win a game for a team. But might it tip the balance either in a crucial situation or even before the opening kickoff? I think so.<BR/><BR/>I also contend, based on nothing more than personal experience in the stadiums, talking with players and standing at field level being able to practically feel the collective pulse of a team, that home field advantage may have a greater effect on the way the two teams play early in a game rather than in the second half. In so many places I've been at, games were either won, or nearly put away early because of the explosion of emotion, noise and adrenaline that nearly lifts you off the ground.<BR/><BR/>I don't dispute that every team has a certain level of home field advantage. Of course they do. But when you listen to what the players say, they paint a picture that speaks volumes about what they face inside the stadium rather than what they've had to deal with outside of it.CGabrielhttp://cgabriel.comnoreply@blogger.com