Master Index of Archived Threads


why is it most players perform better at home?

Bret Sabermetric Jan 01 2006 07:50 AM

As mm asked here. http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=2092&start=20 Gracefully he backed off his own admittedly simplistic answer (because the fans at home don't boo), and since I said it was a complicated question worthy of its own thread, here is that thread. Bill James actually raised the issue, and a bunch of possible answers a decade or two ago, but I have no idea where, so I'll just hope we can come up with the same bunch and maybe expand on it. 1) mm's 'friendly fans" thesis 2) nymr83's thesis, expressed in the thread referenced above that the players are better rested for sleeping in their own beds. 3) James mentioned the idea that the umpires are under some pressure, psychological or otherwise, to get the vocal dissatisfaction down to an acceptable level and so favor the home team on close calls. 4) He also put forth the notion that in baseball the advantage is strategic: the home team gets to bat last and so can apply strategies suitab le for its needs. 5) James, too: familiarity with the physical quirks of the home field is an edge 6) nymr83 also mentioned his hope that the GMs have acquired players whose skills suit the home park--this may be the same as or different from number 5). There are other possibilities, I'm sure, all with their own validity and lack thereof.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 01 2006 10:15 AM

Not that I want to start the year by having a long conversation with myself or anything, but there's a nice article in Saturday's Times about the mysteriousness of the home-field advantage (in relation to the football Giants) that introduces and sums up some of these issues. Oh, really, Sal? Yes, it's quite interesting, Bret, you should read it. Oh, I will, I promise you. Oh, shut up, the both of you, no one cares. Let's get back to the issue. Okay, Doc. You're the boss. James's most interesting point on this broken-off discussion was when he said that many of these factors have checkable data. That is, there were hundreds of games earlier in the century when teams, not fully realizing the strategic advantage of batting second, chose to bat first in home games. We could compare those home games to the home games that season that the club batted last, and see what the difference was like. Or we could compare teams' record in the first home game after a road trip (when they would have flown in without having slept in their own beds) and compare those games with home games where they did sleep at home. Or we could compare the home-field advantage of teams playing at "home" but not in their actual ballpark (the Yankees in '73 and '74, the Expos when their stadium collapsed, the Dodgers in Jersey City in 1957, etc.) Stuff like that. All very interesting, all unmined areas as far as I know.

old original jb Jan 01 2006 11:30 AM Dodgers games in Jersey City

http://www.thediamondangle.com/marasco/hist/nj5657.html It's a very small sample size so it probably doesn't refute all the arguments it would seem to refute.

Frayed Knot Jan 01 2006 11:40 AM

The home team in MLB wins about 54% of the time, a figure which is significant but probably not as big as many would guess. 1) 'friendly fans" -- you'd think that at the professional level this wouldn't matter so much; after all, aren't we always told how these guys can "tune out" whatever going on around them? ... although the H-v-A diff in basketball - where the fans are closest to the action - is so huge maybe it means a lot more than logic would suggest. 2) "sleeping in you own bed" theory -- While I don't think it means much on an individual game basis, it likely has more of a cumulative effect: 2nd week on the road in MLB; 5th city in 8 days in NBA/NHL, etc., ... although those notions wouldn't explain the NFL difference. 3) "Intimidated umpires" theory -- impossible to prove one way or the other but I think this is more of a reason than leagues and announcers are willing to admit. Most seem reluctant to even discuss it. Again, the NBA's huge split implies this as a factor. 4) "home team bats last" -- odd that baseball is the only game that has distinct and tangible advantages to being home (hitting last, unique fields) yet has a smaller HF advantage than football/hoops/hockey where the fields are (virtually) the same 5) "home field quirks" -- see above. Given the other advantages (1, 2 & 3) you'd think this would give baseball teams a bigger edge than other sports. 6) "tailoring team to park" -- this should make reason #5 matter even more - yet, aside from a few football teams who attempt to expoit local weather or indoor turf, only baseball has this as an edge but still produces the smallest H-v-A difference.

metsmarathon Jan 01 2006 01:11 PM

the sleeping in your own bed angle could easily be tested. there are plenty of teams in the major sports that share cities, and therefore would be playing road games from their own beds. we could look at the home/road differential betwen the knicks & nets when facing each other. ditto for the old brooklyn dodgers and ny giants; the devils, rangers, and islanders; lots of baseball teams in modern times with interleague play; ny teams vs philly teams if the benefit of sleeping in one's own bed is a major contributor, then there should not be much of a difference in the home and road records of these teams. it would be very easy to investigate the impact of the umpires/referees in other sports. we could look at the number of calls made against home and away teams. in baseball, we could look at, i suppose, the balls & strikes calls of pitchers at home and on the road. we could also look at the error rate at home and on the road, i suppose, but that doesn't really have an impact, wether a missed ball was a hit or an error. the first game after a road trip, too, would be a good thing to check into.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 01 2006 01:43 PM

If only we had some kind of Mets Data Base...

A Boy Named Seo Jan 01 2006 03:01 PM

I offer theory #7, which may be tied in (or tied up) with the playas not sleeping in their own beds. The millionaire road warriors perform worse on the road because they are exhausted after a late night of vigorous sex with some traveling ho show they "bumped into" in the hotel lobby. A few vodka Red Bull's later, all inhibitions, along with his expensive suit and her yesteryear fuck-me pumps, are discarded, and the next day we're wondering why our hero looks like he's going through the motions and and his bat looks decidedly slower, despite those three hits on getaway day. And as to the cahnfidence angle, I never gave it all that much credit until I started noticing how many athletes in pre-game and post-game interviews, athletes in the booth, etc., were citing confidence as a real, tangible part of their game. I know Fran wore a lot of you out on it, but if athletes are readily admitting that there is part of their game that needs help at that moment and it's something they have no control over whatsoever, then that's a pretty vulnerable spot to be in and talk about, and I totally buy it. It may be completely in their head, but that's the point.

SwitchHitter Jan 01 2006 04:11 PM

Indeed, Seo. It's about comfort level and that is definitely mental. Generally speaking, you're going to do better if you think you will than if you think you won't. And while confidence (I'm not a Metfan) is part of the comfort zone, I expect playing in your home park is part of that, too. And maybe different players have different feelings about what aspect of home field makes it feel like home. While some might say it's the crowd, others might say it's the field or whatever. And for each player, what he thinks and feels is important.

MFS62 Jan 01 2006 06:03 PM

Well, if you believe Jim Bouton, its because they get MORE sleep at home. :) Later

Elster88 Jan 01 2006 10:57 PM

]Oh, really, Sal? Yes, it's quite interesting, Bret, you should read it. Oh, I will, I promise you. Oh, shut up, the both of you, no one cares. Let's get back to the issue. Okay, Doc. You're the boss. Post (portion) That Made Me Laugh Out Loud of the Day.

RealityChuck Jan 02 2006 12:37 PM

All of the above. It's a combination of factors, and they affect different players differently. There are also differences in other sports. ]1) mm's 'friendly fans" thesis It definitely better if the fans are rooting for you. Not only does it encourage the home team, it discourages the visitors and may affect the officials (though probably not so much). Not all players are affected, but there are always one or two on a team who get upset by it (do you really think the booing doesn't affect Matsui, for instance? If it doesn't why does anyone boo him?), and that's often enough to make a difference. ]2) nymr83's thesis, expressed in the thread referenced above that the players are better rested for sleeping in their own beds. It's generally better to sleep at home -- not to mention that you haven't been traveling to get to the city where the hotel is. Travel is tiring. Again, this doesn't have to affect the entire time; all you need is for one or two key players to be off just a bit, turning a home run into a long fly ball, for instance. ]3) James mentioned the idea that the umpires are under some pressure, psychological or otherwise, to get the vocal dissatisfaction down to an acceptable level and so favor the home team on close calls. Least likely -- umps might just as easily favor the visitors because they're pissed at the fans. And most officials make the call in a split second, without thinking about how anyone will react. ]4) He also put forth the notion that in baseball the advantage is strategic: the home team gets to bat last and so can apply strategies suitab le for its needs. Certainly. If the score is tied in the bottom of the ninth, all the home team has to do is score. If the score is tied in the top of the ninth, the visitors may go ahead, but the game isn't over. ]5) James, too: familiarity with the physical quirks of the home field is an edge True. And it also works in other sports. The Celtics used to be great in Boston Garden because the floor had both dead spots and live spots and a Celtic player could manuever an opponent to dribble onto the dead spot and steal the ball. ]6) nymr83 also mentioned his hope that the GMs have acquired players whose skills suit the home park--this may be the same as or different from number 5). Different, but of course you're going to get players who have the right skills for your park. The Red Sox aren't going to want a left-handed fly-ball pitcher, for instance. Less of a factor in other sports, though there are differences in parks. Remember: hockey rinks and basketball courts have only been standardized sizes relatively recently. ]odd that baseball is the only game that has distinct and tangible advantages to being home (hitting last, unique fields) Don't forget hockey does, too: the home team always gets the final line change, so they can react to the visitors and have the most effective matchups. Ultimately, it's a multivariable problem dealing with human emotions, which means you can't prove anything one thing is the cause.

Nymr83 Jan 02 2006 01:20 PM

]Remember: hockey rinks and basketball courts have only been standardized sizes relatively recently. i cant speak for hockey but NBA basketball courts have been standardized since at least the late '60's ]Different, but of course you're going to get players who have the right skills for your park. well, i wouldnt trust in all GMs to look into park factors and avoid the temptation of that .300 hitter who, whoops, played last year in lefty-heaven when his park is lefty-hell

TheOldMole Jan 02 2006 03:49 PM

It occurs to me that you would never see a thread with this title at Penthouse Forum.