I can't believe the impact of homecourt advantage we are seeing this year. In the second round, the home teams are 14-1 (the one being Detroit, yes sir!). Moodini and I were talking about this and it just doesn't make sense. It's still a flat basketball surface with 10' rims. Is it the crowd? The refs? Or do the players just get more amped up at home?

Wizzle, I was just going to start a thread about this.

14 of 15 won by the home team in round 2, so far.

Team A blows out Team B at home and then goes out and gets blown out themselves on the road.

Anybody care to make a case that it is anything else but skewed officiating?

I think the refs are a big factor. I don't have any numbers to support it, but every analyst talks about the home town call. I don't understand that really. Why is a foul different from building to building? Why do rules change by location? That's crap. Of course each set of officials will call a game differently, but there shouldn't be a home whistle and a road whistle.

in this post referee gambling scandal era, maybe its the league trying to make everyone happy.

It's not just fouls, Chris.

Every loose ball that goes out of bounds gets awarded to the home team.

It's annoying to me that the media doesn't talk about this subject.

I think we're all smart enough to see through the "they slept in their own beds last night" and "the crowd really gave them energy" bullshit.

Check out the free throw discrepancies in these series home/away.

The Lakers had a huge number of more free throws through two games and I was telling my buddy to "wait to see what happens when they get to Utah". He kind of laughed and shrugged it off, but he called me last night and was joking about it.

It's a joke.

Maybe I'll write this up as a question for Langlois and send it to him.

I think the refs are a big factor. I don't have any numbers to support it, but every analyst talks about the home town call. I don't understand that really. Why is a foul different from building to building? Why do rules change by location? That's crap. Of course each set of officials will call a game differently, but there shouldn't be a home whistle and a road whistle.

I suppose that a skeptic might say that if the home team always gets the calls, playoff series are much more likely to go 6-7 games.

It seemed like there used to be a lot more sweeps and 5 gamers in the past (maybe 10+ years ago).

All things being equal, it just makes no sense that Utah is able to go 37-4 at home and 17-24 on the road.

It's stupid. I'd rather have sweeps than bogus officiating to make a team better than they really are.

You guys haven't seen a damn thing yet.

Wait until our Boston series, it is going to make that abortion against Cleveland look like a fair series.

The only reason I watch anymore is because Detroit has a good enough team to beat the refs on some nights. There is no doubt we are superior to Boston. We are a better team, and the talent disparity favors us. But we don't have the superstar (Paul is just a fabricated one) and KG is legit.

We don't have the story, we sure as hell don't have the east coast biased Boston media. And we are going up against a Lakers Celtics finals. (if that changes, I will repent)

If it ain't rough , it ain't right, right?
I hope they are ready.

Z (Pig's Eye): Has there ever been a playoff round so dominated by home teams? 15-1 with the only loss being a last-10-second 1-pointer. Is this evidence of parity among the top teams?

John Hollinger: (4:40 PM ET ) It's partly that there's tight series,but mostly it's just random, random, random, random, random.

Whatever, dude.

Yeah, John Hollinger is a cunt. Anybody have a pic of him I can photoshop?

http://espn.go.com/i/columnists/hollinger_john_m.jpg

http://pyleoflist.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/hollinger_john_c.jpg

Also, if you punch John Hollinger into Google Images, the first 5 pictures of players that you see are Europeans (not counting a cartoon image)

I know, I did a quick GooImages search and I was like... wtf.

Couldn't find a good'n, but I'll see what I can do.

10 mins of work and I quit, this fuck ain't worth my time.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6459/hollingercuntsw4.jpg

Photoshop his head on the body of Christopher Lowell.

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x147/dspiewak/editorial15.jpg

17-1

I'm starting to think it's the matching shirts in the crowd. I know I couldn't play in a sea of yellow (unless it was also on my jersey).

19-1

this is getting stupid

Detroit Pistons Organization Fined

Posted May 15 2008 3:37PM
Print E-mail RSS Feeds E-News Sign Up Share on Facebook

NEW YORK, May 15, 2008 – The Detroit Pistons organization has been fined $800,000 for prematurely ending its second round playoff series versus the Orlando Magic, it was announced today by Stu Jackson, NBA Executive Vice President Basketball Operations.

The Pistons were reportedly warned after their game 4 victory in Orlando on May 10th, that they should not allow the series to end before the league had a chance to maximize advertising and sponsorship revenues.

Pistons President and General Manager, Joe Dumars, issued a statement Thursday afternoon in which he indicated that the age and poor health of Pistons owner, William Davidson, necessitated that the series be ended as soon as possible, "Mr. Davidson is about to become a member of another exclusive club, in the sky", Dumars noted.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Pistons President and General Manager, Joe Dumars, issued a statement Thursday afternoon in which he indicated that the age and poor health of Pistons owner, William Davidson, necessitated that the series be ended as soon as possible, "Mr. Davidson is about to become a member of another exclusive club, in the sky", Dumars noted.

If that's sexual innuendo, its pretty fucking gross Glenn.

Oops, it was supposed to be a jacket reference, but I can see where you are coming from.

NOT LITERALLY

All three of these remaining series are going 7 games, by the way.

Anyone disagree?

can the spurs be dun tonight? DunCan?

I hope so, Cindy Kate. I hope so.

Not long after, Paul was called for two offensive fouls in a span of 17 seconds, followed by three fouls on David West in a span of 28 seconds. The flurry of whistles naturally enraged the Hornets since both of their stars were saddled with four fouls as a result, and New Orleans' ensuing spiral helped San Antonio stretch its lead to 78-63 entering the fourth.

I wonder why home teams keep winning?

Yeah, same reason why the Wings aren't already in the finals.

I wonder why home teams keep winning?

Remember that one time when Dice , Sheed, and Ben all got into foul trouble finally allowing Tim Duncan to get on a hot streak?
Heh, good thing that wasn't an important game, like a game 7 of the NBA finals.

TIME FOR SOME GUMBO

a very important question....

Will the crowd be in matching shirts?

Remember that one time when Dice , Sheed, and Ben all got into foul trouble finally allowing Tim Duncan to get on a hot streak?
Heh, good thing that wasn't an important game, like a game 7 of the NBA finals.
It sure would've been nice if we had another decent big off the bench, like Elden Campbell, to fill in for a few minutes.

I think Flip needs to call up Gene Hackman and tell him to bring his tape measure (Ollie would be good too) for our next road trip to Boston.

I think Flip needs to call up Gene Hackman and tell him to bring his tape measure (Ollie would be good too) for our next road trip to Boston.
I'd settle for Nick Nolte and Neon from Blue Chips...

I'd settle for Nick Nolte and Neon from Blue Chips...

I bet Ricky Roe could knock down some J's on the road too.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v664/jazz1232cardshop/DavidSternAlmighty.jpg

A few days old, but on topic.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/05/25/no_place_like_home/?page=full


No place like home

It's not just the Celtics: What experts know about why home teams do better

By Jonah Lehrer
May 25, 2008

DURING THE 2008 playoffs, the Boston Celtics have been nearly unbeatable, at least when playing at home. Until Thursday, when they lost to the Detroit Pistons, the Celtics were a perfect 9-0 at home, with an average margin of victory of more than 16 points. They look, in short, like champions.

However, when the Celtics leave the TD Banknorth Garden something mysterious happens. Their defense crumbles, their shooting percentage plummets, and they look woefully out of sync. As a result, the team has lost playoff game after playoff game. If it weren't for their home-court heroics, the team would have been sent packing weeks ago.

The Celtics are an extreme example of a sporting phenomenon known as home-field advantage: teams playing on their home field, or court, are significantly more likely to win. The advantage plays a role in every major sport. Home teams in the NBA have a 62 percent chance of winning, while those in Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League have a 53 percent chance of winning. (Football teams are somewhere in between, with annual ranges typically between 54 and 64 percent.) Although the effect has declined over time - in 1950, home teams in the NBA won 75 percent of all games - playing at home remains one of the most significant advantages in professional sports.

"Athletes spend so much time and energy looking for any kind of edge," says Albert Carron, a professor of kinesiology at the University of Western Ontario. "But nobody's found another edge this powerful."

Despite the magnitude of the effect, though, the source of the home-field advantage remains shrouded in mystery. Even athletes don't seem to understand the phenomenon. When Ray Allen was recently asked why the Celtics couldn't win away from Boston, he confessed that he had no clue: "It's hard to say. I have no answer for it. I have no answer."

Scientists, however, have begun to find clues. In research that has focused on sports as varied as cricket, figure skating, and field hockey, they have discovered that the home-field advantage is a surprisingly complex phenomenon that likely includes the influence of fans on player performance, the bias of referees, and the optimal emotional state for athletes. So, while there is no definitive explanation for home-field advantage - Ray Allen was right - researchers suggest that there are some prime suspects.

Perhaps the most obvious one is the disadvantage of having to travel, which can be tiring, frustrating, and disorienting. One study of collegiate basketball teams found that even when a visiting team had traveled less than 200 miles, the home team had a winning percentage of 58.8 percent. When the journey had been more than 200 miles, the home advantage increased to 84.6 percent. For these amateur athletes, traveling longer distances, often by bus, was a serious handicap.

Professional teams, however, seem to be better adjusted to life on the road. (The chartered planes and fancy hotels probably help.) A 1986 analysis of nearly 3,500 Premier League English professional soccer games found that the distance traveled had no effect on home-field advantage. A study in 1992 of professional baseball and hockey teams concluded that "travel factors" accounted for less than 1.5 percent of the variance in the home advantage. A notable exception is when teams travel from the Pacific time zone to the East Coast. In this situation, jet lag seems to impair performance. For instance, a 1995 study of MLB teams found that teams crossing the country scored, on average, 1.24 fewer runs than expected.

Another theory is that the home-field advantage comes from a familiarity with the field itself. When the 1985-86 Celtics went 40-1 at home, several competitors complained that the old Boston Garden, with its slightly uneven parquet floor, gave the team an unfair advantage, since the Celtics were more familiar with the "dead spots." Likewise, the odd proportions of Fenway Park are often cited as an asset for Red Sox hitters, since they're used to the stadium's unusual layout. They know how to hit the ball over the Green Monster, and the team's fielders are comfortable with the park's odd angles.

There's some evidence that the unique quirks of a sporting venue do help the home team. For example, a 1995 study showed that British soccer teams playing on "nontraditional pitches" - fields that are either longer or shorter than normal, or consist of artificial turf - enjoyed a larger than normal home-field advantage. Another study compared the home winning percentages of NBA, NHL, and MLB teams before and after they moved to a new stadium. For 26 of the 37 teams, there was a decrease in the home advantage following a move. Because the new venue was unfamiliar - the players had yet to learn the secrets of the parquet floor - they were less likely to win.

A third possibility is that the cheering crowd exerts an influence on the referees, causing them to favor the home team. A 2002 experiment showed professional soccer referees a videotaped match and had them make officiating decisions. Half of the referees watched the game without sound, while the other half were exposed to simulated crowd noise. These cheers significantly biased the calls of the referees: On average, they called 2.3 fewer fouls against the home team when listening to the sound of the crowd.

Studies of actual soccer matches in the English Premier League support the experiment. (The English leagues are a popular subject for researchers because the matches feature animated audiences and take place within the same time zone, reducing the complicating factor of travel fatigue.) A 2007 analysis of more than 5,000 soccer matches found that, on average, home teams scored 1.5 goals while away teams scored 1.1 goals. This difference increased with crowd size, so that each additional 10,000 spectators increased the home-team advantage by 0.1 goals. The most surprising element of the research, however, was that the scoring disparity was largely the result of referees, with less experienced referees calling significantly more penalties against the visiting team. They seemed intimidated by the rowdy fans.

A study of the Winter Olympics found that, although host countries enjoyed a large advantage - they collected significantly more medals than normal - this edge was limited to "subjectively judged events," such as freestyle skiing and figure skating. (There was no host-country advantage in timed events.) This suggests that cheering crowds influenced the verdicts of the judges, not the performance of the athletes.

Some researchers, however, caution that it's difficult to tease apart referee bias from player performance. "It's possible that visiting teams actually commit more fouls or perform at a lower level," says Carron. If that's the case, then the "bias" is actually evidence of referee impartiality. When Carron investigated the number of penalties called in error during 42 televised NHL games, he found no difference between home and away teams. The cheering crowd had no effect on officiating mistakes.

One of the most important causes of the home-field advantage is also the hardest to measure: the psychological state of the athletes. For one thing, most professionals aren't interested in taking a lengthy survey before a big match. And then there's the difficulty of quantifying minor shifts in mood.

Nevertheless, several studies have found significant differences, at least in team sports, between the emotional states of home and away teams. (Athletes competing in individual sports, like alpine skiing and tennis, don't seem to be affected by their location.) For instance, a study of 100 rugby players found that athletes playing at home were more confident and less anxious than players on the visiting team. Similar results have been found in studies of high school basketball teams and field hockey players. This echoes what many athletes say.

What remains unclear, however, is how these emotional states impact player performance. One possibility is that playing at home makes teams more aggressive. A large analysis of NHL matches found that, when home teams win, they tend to rack up more penalties for aggressive behavior, such as fighting and forechecking.

Another possibility is that supportive fans help teams cope with adversity and abrupt shifts in momentum. "One of the reasons visiting teams always want to take the crowd out of the game," Carron says, "is that a crowd can really help a team get back on its feet." While a cheering audience won't always cause a team to play better - aggressiveness is not always the best strategy - it can keep a team from giving up.

However, the psychological benefits provided by a home crowd also come with some important drawbacks. Even athletes playing before adoring fans report increased levels of anxiety. This can make athletes "choke" in high-pressure situations. Skills that they typically take for granted - like shooting free throws or throwing strikes - become all but impossible.

Several years ago, an innovative study compared the performance of two NCAA basketball teams in the presence and absence of spectators. Because of a measles outbreak, the teams played 11 games while the schools were quarantined: the matchups took place in empty arenas. To the surprise of the researchers, both of the teams played much better without fans. They scored more points, had higher shooting percentages, and made more free throws. The cheers of adoring fans, it appears, actually hurt the home team. They just hurt the visitors even more.

Jonah Lehrer is an editor at large at Seed magazine and author of "Proust Was a Neuroscientist."

A third possibility is that the cheering crowd exerts an influence on the referees, causing them to favor the home team.
Well there goes that theory as it pertains Game 4.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1066079/index.htm

Hmmmm, apparently not unlike the IRS, ghosts also give benefits to businesses that move to Michigan.

If you are Phil Jackson, you have to love the fact that Leon Powe shot more free throws in game 2 than your entire team.

Time for this series to do a 180, thanks to HOME COOKING.

What is the home court record overall in these playoffs?

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8225612/Free-throw-disparity-crucial-in-Celtics'-Game-2-win?MSNHPHMA

edit: link not working

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8225612/Free-throw-disparity-crucial-in-Celtics'-Game-2-win

The writer made a good point. Leaving the same refs for the whole series - why doesnt this happen?

Here we go.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aUrZ16kqbll4&refer=home


NBA Home Bias Suggests Referees Committing Fouls

Commentary by Kevin Hassett

June 23 (Bloomberg) -- As the Boston Celtics celebrated their record 17th championship, the National Basketball Association suffered more accusations of biased officiating. During the Finals, former referee Tim Donaghy accused NBA officials of calling fouls to manipulate the results of playoff games.

Donaghy, embroiled in a gambling scandal, also pointed to Game 6 of the 2002 conference finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and Sacramento Kings. He asserted that the referees intentionally called more fouls on the Kings to try to deliver a win to the Lakers and extend the contest to seven games.

NBA Commissioner David Stern called the allegations ``baseless'' and accused Donaghy, a ``convicted felon,'' of ``turning on all his colleagues when Mr. Donaghy is the only one guilty of a crime.''

Donaghy's last accusation is intriguing to an economist, because the league would certainly benefit from the described actions. NBA playoff series are best of seven, so they can run anywhere from four to seven games. If the series runs longer than four, then the league earns more gate revenue, and television broadcasters can sell more advertisements.

Of course, there's also a strong incentive for the league to be honest. If fans suspect foul play, they will presumably stop buying tickets.

How might a bias exist in practice? The easiest way might be for officials to favor the home team.

Serious P.R. Problem
There has been an increasing buzz among sportswriters that suggests the NBA has, at the very least, a serious public relations problem on its hands. These concerns were inflamed by the recent NBA Finals.

In Game 2 in Boston, the Celtics shot 28 more free throws than the Lakers. In Game 3 in Los Angeles, the Lakers shot 12 more free throws.

Is this just anecdotal, or can hard data and economic analysis be used to identify questionable patterns? To explore this issue, I gathered playoff and regular-season data on thousands of NBA games.

A first look at the numbers is troubling. Basketball is the one sport that should have the smallest home-field advantage. Every court is the same. Yet in the 2008 playoffs, the home team won 64 of 86 games -- or 74 percent of the time. If we exclude the first round, where there are bound to be some blowouts, the home team won 34 out of 42, an 81 percent clip.

Skyrocketing Percentage
Travel might explain a modest home-court advantage. It could also be that adrenaline is stoked by the fans, and the pattern is completely innocent. There may be another answer.

Since the 2002 regular season, home teams won a little more than 60 percent of the time. In the playoffs, when a series might be extended by referees favoring the home team, the winning percentage skyrockets.

If the true odds of the home team winning were six in 10, as in the regular season, then the odds of observing 34 home victories in 42 games simply by chance are close to zero.

As may have been evident in the NBA Finals, home teams tend to get more calls. This would affect the outcome because foul calls lead to free throws; what's more, the home team can play more aggressive defense once it's aware that the officials are being kind to them.

Unfair officiating might also show up in shooting percentages.

Strange Occurrences
Once again, the statistics suggest something strange has been occurring in the playoffs. During the regular season since 2002-3, the home team generally gets called for 0.8 fewer fouls than the visiting team.

During the playoffs since 2003, though, the home-court advantage almost doubles, with the home team being called, on average, for 1.4 fewer fouls than the visiting team.

The same holds for field-goal percentage. In the regular season since 2002-3, the home team tends to shoot about 1.3 percentage points better from the field than the away team. In the playoffs since 2003, that difference jumps to 2.3 points.

This year, the difference has been 3.5 percentage points. This suggests the home team is allowed to play aggressively.

A skeptic might argue that the home-court advantage is magnified in the playoffs. Still, the data allow one to investigate.

How It's Done
Here's how. Later in the series, a home victory might be necessary for the games to be extended. In that case, the officiating bias might be greater. Sometimes a series might end before seven games if the home team wins. In those cases, the favoritism may be less. In the seventh game, the bias might disappear, as it no longer would serve any purpose. The series will end no matter what.

First let's look at Game 5. In the 2007 and 2008 playoffs, 25 series extended to at least five games. At times when the home team was leading three games to one, and another win meant the end of the series, the visiting team shot 1.1 percentage points better than the home team. When a home-team win doesn't end the series, the home team's field-goal percentage is 5.4 points higher on average than the away team's.

Let's turn to Game 6: In the 2007 and 2008 playoffs, in games where the home team was behind in the series, it was called for 4.1 fewer fouls on average than the away team.

The Seventh Game
In the seventh game the foul differential drops to just one during the past two years. That's little more than the regular season average.

All the data suggest there have been movements in the number of calls that are consistent with the suspicion that the NBA sought to extend series.

To be sure, such statistics prove nothing, since they are based on small samples. Yet the home bias in the playoffs, and the way in which it seems to change as a series progresses, is troubling, and worthy of further inquiry.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/pgStory?contentId=8339122&MSNHPHMA#sport=NFL&photo=8337136

the plot thickens