« Markets in everything, Ukrainian restaurant edition | Main | What if the shyness drug boosts confidence? »
Kevin Hassett on whether NBA refs are crooked
In case you don't know, Kevin is an economist at AEI. Here is where things stand:
Hassett found no smoking gun.
But he did find some weird stuff in elimination games, when calls seemed to favor extending the series more than in other games.
He also found that home court advantage was much more important in the playoffs than in the regular season, which is a bit odd.
Both findings are consistent with what you'd find if you wanted to have as many money-making playoff games as possible. Basically, if every series ended in a sweep, there'd by very little opportunity to make money. However, if every series gets to Game 7 -- which happens when home teams win every game -- the teams and the League have not only three more chances to make money, but the three most exciting games of the series.
Here is further explanation. Here is the Hassett piece. Note that fouls called on a team are often a measure of how tired that team is or how sloppy it is on defense. So if teams play better with their back to the wall, at home, or if stamina matters more toward the end of the year, these correlations could potentially arise through natural means.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 24, 2008 at 06:53 AM in Sports | Permalink
Comments
On home field advantage. I remember reading that one part of homefield advantage came from away teams being harassed. Playoff games would have more attendance and more at stake, so more harassment.
Posted by: VC at Jun 24, 2008 8:37:06 AM
Actually, in a fair system home court advantage should be more important in the playoffs than the regular season. In the playoffs the teams are fairly well-matched in talent, making other factors such as home court and random luck appear more decisive. In the regular season, games can be more lopsided in terms of talent. The strongest teams overcome home court advantage when on the road, making home court appear less important.
You see the exact same thing in the NFL. (See link behind my name.) In fact, as the NFL playoffs progress toward the Super Bowl, home field advantage appears to increase in importance. This is exactly what we'd expect to see in a fair system because team talent levels tend to get closer as the weaker teams are eliminated.
As for the calls favoring extension of a series, I'd buy that.
Posted by: Brian at Jun 24, 2008 8:42:08 AM
Brian: "In case you don't know, Kevin is an economist at AEI."
http://www.amazon.com/Dow-36-000-Strategy-Profiting/dp/0609806998/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214315926&sr=8-1
Posted by: Barry at Jun 24, 2008 9:59:09 AM
I believe some studies have shown that among male athletes there is a significant testosterone differential between home and away teams. The body responds to being in unfamiliar territory with hostile males from opposing tribes by lowering testosterone and making us meek, presumably to avoid starting a fight. Which is one reason why it's important for the visiting teams to psych themselves up and try to boost testosterone.
It seems plausible the added pressure of the playoffs could enhance this effect -- by further depressing testosterone among the visitors, and raising it for the home team who are defending their territory.
Posted by: jim at Jun 24, 2008 10:00:58 AM
Brian's explanation of home court advantage makes a lot of sense to me.
I've always had the general impression that playoff games in all sports tend to be decided by a single outstanding play more often than regular season games. If true, that would be another example of the phenomenon he describes.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Jun 24, 2008 11:11:12 AM
correlation does not imply causation anyone?
Posted by: john at Jun 24, 2008 12:44:03 PM
Yet another explanation could be that the so called "circadian advantage" from not having to change timezones is more in phase with the home court during the playoffs. In MLB the circadian advantage was aparrently larger than the home field advantage according to one study
Posted by: Cameron at Jun 24, 2008 1:03:09 PM
The incentive is pretty attenuated. The individual teams might increase their gate by getting a series back home, but would the Cletics really have wanted to tank game 6 to get a Game 7? Or tank game 2 to avoid a sweep on the road? Not a chance.
And the league barely cares. Its TV contract was bought and paid for years ago and the next negotiation is years off.
The broadcast network has no role in officiating.
So, again, the incentives are attenuated and the risks are a mighty brouhaha.
Posted by: guy in the veal calf office at Jun 24, 2008 1:25:51 PM
Home crowds are going to be larger, and much more vigorous and involved in playoff games. To the extent home court advantage is derived from the crowd, then we should expect home court advantages to be larger in the playoffs.
Its also possible that refs as well as players are influenced by crowd behavior, furthering the effect of home court advantage, and could partially explain foul disparities.
Posted by: j at Jun 24, 2008 2:12:31 PM
My father used to say that MLB money was divided : 4 initial games for players. 5 Umpires, 6 and 7 MLB.So most series would last 7 games. I dont know where he got the information biut it reached the same conclusion that the economist in 1979.
Posted by: k at Jun 24, 2008 2:16:52 PM
j has it completely correct. home-court advantage in sports comes mostly from the crowd. regular season NBA games generally have very lame crowds, so the advantage is limited to the home team being familiar w/ the gym. In the playoffs, attendance is much higher, and the noise and energy level in the gym is generally an order of magnitude higher than the regular season... there's nothing odd about this finding at all... And it is why home-court advantage is so much bigger in college than pro...
Posted by: thorstein veblen at Jun 25, 2008 12:43:22 AM
