The Inside Scoop on Home-Field Advantage

The NFL Playoffs are here! For many a fan, this is one of the most exciting times of the year because the Super Bowl is right around the corner and each weekend in January is full of meaningful playoff football. Commentators, pundits, analysts, and all forms of talking heads love to postulate about the importance of home-field advantage. First of all, few, if any, of these “experts” are actually sport psychologists, so they’re talking about an area in which they are not particularly well educated. The point of this post is to educate you a little bit on what research has shown regarding the home-field advantage, or lack thereof.

Home-field advantage describes the perceived advantage, usually a psychological advantage, that the home team is said to have over the visiting team as a result of playing in familiar facilities and in front of supportive fans. But the real question is this: Do teams really win more at home than on the road? If the answer to this questions is no, then the home-field advantage is nothing more than a myth or cliché. Here’s what the research says.

Research has shown that teams do win more at home during the regular season. This is particularly true in basketball and hockey where the home-court/home-ice advantage is quite large. The effect is not as big for baseball and football. Researchers guess that the difference lies in the nature of the sports themselves – flow of the game, proximity of the fans, fan interaction, etc.

End of story? Afraid not. Despite slightly dated research here, Baumeister & Steinhilber (1984) found that the home-field advantage might be lost and possibly turn into a disadvantage once a team moves from the regular season to the post-season. In the World Series from 1924-1982 in series that went at least five games, the home team won 60% of the first two games … but only 40% of the last two games. Even more interesting, in the series that went a full seven games, the home team won only 38% of the time! Baumeister and Steinbilber found similar results in basketball. They concluded that the supposed “advantage” actually turned into a disadvantage as games became more critical and the pressure mounted.

Baumeister and Steinhilber’s findings have been replicated in an investigation of golf performance. Wright, Jackson, Christie, McGuire, and Wright (1991) looked at data on performance in the British Open Golf Championship and found that the scores of contending British golfers (or “home” players) deteriorated more than those of contending foreign players from the first to the final round. Additionally, Wright and Voyer (1995) found that ice hockey players who play in front of a supportive audience (i.e. home ice) perform less successfully than visiting players when they have the chance to capture a championship.

How did this happen? Further analysis indicated that in-game performance, measured by the simple statistics collected during every sporting event, varied between the home team and the visiting team. The home team had a significant decrease in performance while the visiting team maintained consistent performance throughout the playoffs. Researchers suggest that players put too much pressure on themselves to perform well in front of the home crowd while the visiting players have less expectations and can just go out and play.

HOWEVER (and this is a big “however”), since the Baumeister and Steinhilber research was published in 1984, six more World Series have gone the full seven game (and ironically, my St. Louis Cardinals have played in three of them, winning only the most recent one in 2011) and the home team won all six game sevens. (So to recap, from 1924-1982, only 38% of home teams won game seven but from 1984-2011, 100% of home teams won game seven of the World Series.)  Followup data from the NBA from 1984-1994 showed that the home team won 18 consecutive seventh games during the playoffs (not just the NBA Finals). So it’s possible that modern coaches and athletes have adapted to the pressures and expectations of performing at home and are now maximizing the home-court advantage.

So here’s the bottom line considering all the research evidence (from Weinberg & Gould, 2011):
1) During the regular season, a clear home-field advantage exists for professional and amateur team sports, dating back almost 100 years.
2) The advantage occurs for both team and individual sports and for both male and female athletes.
3) Evidence supporting home-field advantage during the playoffs or postseason is mixed. The jury is still out on this one.

Really, point number three is the key. Until the home-court advantage can be completely validated, gamble lightly when it comes to picking postseason winners based on where they’re playing. And of course, none of this research investigated professional football (maybe checkout the Football Freakonomics article below for a counterpoint).

What do you think?

Related articles

• NFL Playoffs 2011: Which Home-Field Advantages Will Be the Greatest? (bleacherreport.com)
• Why Home-Field Advantage Is Vital for San Francisco 49ers’ Postseason Run (bleacherreport.com)
• New England Patriots: Home-Field Advantage Is Key to Super Bowl Run (bleacherreport.com)
• “Football Freakonomics”: How Advantageous Is Home-Field Advantage? And Why? (freakonomics.com)

 

My Suggested Reading List for Professional Development in Performance Psychology

I love to read. In truth, I prefer fiction to nonfiction but my job requires me to keep up with the current happenings in the field. What you’ll find below are my suggestions for the best offerings in the broad field of performance psychology. You’ll see a lot of emphasis on positive psychology, sport/exercise, and faith-based books. I think there’s a lot of breadth in these selections and hopefully a little something for everyone.

I’d love YOUR suggestions on things to read or your thoughts on the books I’ve listed. I’ll also update the list from time to time.

Armstrong, L., & Jenkins, S. (2001). It’s not about the bike: My journey back to life. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group.

Biswas-Diener, R., & Dean, B. (2007). Positive psychology coaching: Putting the science of  happiness to work for your clients. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Csikszentmihaly, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Csikszentmihaly, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: BasicBooks.

Davis, M., Eshelman, E. R., McKay, M. (2008). The relaxation & stress reduction workbook, 6^th Edition. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, Inc.

Dungy, T., & Whitaker, N. (2007). Quiet strength: The principles, practices, & priorities of a winning life. Carol Stream,IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

Frankl, V. E. (1992). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy, 4^th Edition. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Fredrickson, B. (2007). Positivity: Groundbreaking research reveals how to embrace the hidden strength of positive emotions, overcome negativity, and thrive. New York: Crown Publishers.

Halden-Brown, S. (2003). Mistakes worth making: How to turn sports errors into athletic excellence. Champaign,IL: Human Kinetics.

Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory and practice of elite performers. Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley.

Jackson, S., A., & Csikszentmihaly, M. (1999). Flow in sport: The keys to optimal experiences and performances. Champaign,IL: Human Kinetics.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2009). Joining together: Group theory and group skills, 10^th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Lucado, M. (2006). Facing your giants: A David and Goliath story for everyday people. Nashville, TN: Integrity Publishers.

Lucado, M. (2004). It’s not about me: Rescue from the life we thought would make us happy. Nashville,TN: Integrity Publishers.

MacDonald, G. (2004). A resilient life: You can move ahead no matter what. Nashville,TN: Nelson Books.

Maxwell, J., C., & Dornan, J. (1997). Becoming a person of influence: How to positively impact the lives of others. Nashville,TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Murphy, S. (2005). The sport psych handbook: A complete guide to today’s best mental training techniques. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Nakamura, R. M. (1996). The power of positive coaching. Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

Niven, D. (2003). The 100 simple secrets of healthy people: What scientists have learned and how you can use it. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins.

Niven, D. (2001). The 100 simple secrets of happy people: What scientists have learned and how you can use it. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins.

Orlick, T. (2008). In pursuit of excellence, 4^th Edition.Champaign,IL: Human Kinetics.

Peck, M. S. (1978). The road less traveled: A new psychology of love, traditional values and spiritual growth. New York: Touchstone.

Porter, K. (2003). The mental athlete: Inner training for peak performance in all sports. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Rotella, B., & Cullen, B. (1995). Golf is not a game of perfect. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. New York: Free Press.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press.

Vealey, R. S. (2005). Coaching for the inner edge. Morgantown,WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Vernacchia, R. A. (2003). Inner strength: The mental dynamics of athletic performance. Palo Alto, CA: Warde Publishers, Inc.

Vernacchia, R., McGuire, R., & Cook, D. (1996). Coaching mental excellence: It does matter whether you win or lose. Portola Valley, CA: Warde Publishers, Inc.

Warren, F. (2005). PostSecret: Extraordinary confessions from ordinary lives. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Warren, R. (2002). The purpose driven life. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Wooden, J., & Tobin, J. (2004). They call me coach. Chicago, IL: Contemporary Books.

Wootten, M., & Gilbert, B. (1997). A coach for all seasons: The Morgan Wootten story. Indianapolis, IN: Masters Press.

 

If you want to fail, simply have lots and lots of choices: Hicks’ Law Revisited

When learning skills and ingraining them as muscle memory or autopilot responses, it is important that only one way be taught. W.E. Hicks’ 1952 study found that as possible responses increased from one to two, reaction time increased by 58 percent. In other words, having to choose between options takes time, and the more options you have, the greater the reaction time. This is often referred to as “Hicks’ Law“, but Sun Tzu said the same thing many centuries ago: “The more possibilities you present to the enemy, the more diffuse he is forced to become. The more diffuse he becomes, the more difficult it is for him to concentrate sufficiently to make a successful attack.” … Thus, a simple set of skills, combined with an emphasis on actions requiring complex and gross motor muscle operations (as opposed to fine-motor control), all extensively rehearsed, allows for extraordinary performance levels under stress. 

The above is an excerpt from Dave Grossman‘s On Combat book. My brother is a police officer outside of Atlanta, and his area of expertise (keeping the peace) is very different from mine (performance enhancement). However, this book sort of brought our two professional worlds together. He loaned it to me, and although it’s taken close to two years to read the first seventy pages, I’m finally into it and discovering some really interesting parallel’s between sport/exercise and police work/combat (so expect additional posts in the future regarding other interesting tidbits from this book).

Let’s focus on one particular line in this quote: “… having to choose between options takes time, and the more options you have, the greater the reaction time.” This is great stuff for coaches to remember – if you want your athletes to fail, simply give them lots and lots of choices. The same can be said for commanding officers and their soldiers, or even parents and their children. For example, I’ve noticed this phenomenon with my (almost) five-year-old son, Malachi. If he wants to eat some cereal for breakfast, I might say, “Malachi, do you want Life, Cheerios, Rice Krispies, or Kix?” He takes an extraordinarily long time to answer. Sometimes that’s frustrating to me because I just want to grab a box of cereal out of the pantry and be done with it. But it takes his little brain a (relatively) massive amount of time to sort through all of those options and determine which cereal to choose. When he is presented with only two options, his answer is much quicker and usually more confident.

You’ve seen this play itself out in sports: All baseball stadiums have eliminated any color or movement from the outfield wall directly behind the pitcher’s mound. Why? The batter has a hard enough time trying to detect the baseball coming out of the pitcher’s hand and determining if he should swing or not and doesn’t need additional stimuli from centerfield. Think of the basketball free throw, as illustrated in the photo. The additional stimulus of the fat man doing the hula might distract the shooter, giving him additional things to think about which might compromise his shot.

Obviously, choosing a cereal (or a TV show, or a movie, or which toy to play with, or which t-shirt to wear) is of very low consequence. Nothing of value is lost because of a delay in reaction. But what if the setting is more important? And it’s good to note that “importance” is a relative term: a sport event is more important than cereal; a police officer deciding whether he should shoot or not is MUCH more important than a sport event. Hick’s Law doesn’t discuss this, but I wonder if the relative level of importance also plays a role in one’s ability to maximize reaction time.

The bottom line is this: when it comes to providing multiple options in which a quick reaction is desired, use the KISS method – keep it simple. The best way to keep it simple is to actively manage (i.e, minimize) the number of options that are available. And keep this in mind: you perform like you practice. So if you practice, whether as an athlete, police officer, fireman, etc., using the KISS method but then the expectation during performance is that you’ll be able to manage multiple, often conflicting, options, your chances of successfully completing the performance are drastically reduced. Keep it simple and practice like you’ll performance.

What do you think?

An example of poor reaction time. Did too many stimuli play a role?

Related articles

• How the brain plans, executes movement to a ‘go’ signal (news.bioscholar.com)
• Think fast: The neural circuitry of reaction time (esciencenews.com)