Abstract

The idea of home court advantage in the sport of basketball is analyzed through reviewing six separate research studies. These studies take data from a wide range of athletes, including: male and female high school players, collegiate male athletes in the Atlantic Coast and Southeastern conferences, a men’s Spanish professional league and the Division 1 Men’s Championships at the State of Sao Paulo in Brazil. All of the studies looked at specific statistical areas to determine what performance variables contributed to and had an impact on winning at home. Each study differed in their findings of which performance variable had the most impact, showing that the specific areas where teams had home court advantage differed and changed inconsistently. However, they all found home court advantage to exist in the sport of basketball at each level examined.

Introduction

In athletics, there can be a multitude of reasons why a team has lost its’ latest game. Whatever the explanation may be for the loss, one factor which may play more of an effect on the outcome of a game than is initially thought is the idea of home court advantage, specifically in the sport of basketball. Home court advantage basically means that when two teams play against each other, the team whose court it is has the home court advantage. According to a study by Leonard, the term home court advantage was defined and questioned in the study as, “'is there statistical evidence to support a home advantage, i.e., is there a statistically significant difference between the likelihood of winning at home and the likelihood of winning away?” (1998, p. 41). In looking at performance variables, conclusions are also developed on what skills home court teams possess and dominate in. Throughout this paper is a discussion and review of recent research completed and published on home court advantage in the sport of basketball.

Literature Review

To begin, one study suggests, “that most teams who play on their home court have a psychological advantage over their rivals because they do not have to travel, have knowledge of the court and referees and have familiarity with the stadium or the crowd” (Gomez, Lorenzo, Barakat, Ortega & Palao, 2008, p. 44). Through obtaining game data from the Spanish professional league, and following game related statistics in areas such as offensive and defensive rebounds, assists, field goals, and so on, statistical analyses were completed and it was concluded that, “58.5% of the games were victories for the local team and 41.5% were victories for the visiting team” (Gomez, et al., 2008, p. 45). This study also found that defensive rebounds and assists appear to be strongly associated with the team who won the contest. While the study did find data which supported home advantage actually exists, this study could have many biases. A prominent one being the fact this study was completed by looking at the European league where there are many rule differences compared to American leagues.

In another international research study, done by De Rose, the Division I Men’s Championships at the State of Sao Paulo in Brazil were analyzed between the years of 2001-2003. It was found that, “home teams win approximately 62% of the games and are better than visiting teams in shooting, rebounds, steals, assists and shooting efficiency” (De Rose, 2004, p. 327). In terms of aggression, home teams were found to be “more aggressive in offense, shooting more than visiting teams and with a higher efficiency” (De Rose, 2004, p. 327). In comparison to Varca’s 1980 study where aggression was looked at more specifically, field goal percentages actually failed to approach significance. This leads to interesting discussions of whether the performance variables which are statistically significant actually lead to home court advantage in all teams.

Further, the collegiate level of men’s basketball was the sample for two different studies. Both the Southeastern Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference were analyzed. In a study completed in 1980 by Phillip Varca, with the Southeastern Conference 1977-78 basketball season as the basis, teams were compared against each other to determine if home court advantage came into play. All teams met two times once at each school, therefore eliminating the possibility of the ability to schedule easier teams at home, and confounding the results. This study found home teams to have a “winning percentage of 70%” (Varca, 1980, p. 249). The skills which were revealed to play a part in teams winning at home were rebounds, steals, and blocked shots. This study hypothesized that aggressive behavior makes the difference between home and away play. The results actually supported this hypothesis, in that rebounds, steals and blocked shots are all considered functionally aggressive behaviors. It was found that as the “margin between winning percentage at home and away increased, the tendency to commit more fouls during road games increased” (Varca, 1980, p. 253). This seems to suggest that teams in a losing state are more frustrated and may become more aggressive, consequently leading to the reason why away teams committed more fouls than home teams, otherwise known as a dysfunctional aggressive behavior. Looking into explanations for the differences in aggressive behavior, referee biases and social support were discussed. In making adjustments to this study, the confounding factors include: group differences among teams, defensive styles, team cohesion, and finally the differences between home courts, which is quite possibly the biggest variable which was treated as a unitary variable and should not have been. Other variables which should have been considered are things like audience distance, sound and lighting, which can all have an effect on teams when they play each other.

Critically analyzing Varca’s study, his methods seem to be extremely logical, and are attempting to use the most accurate ways of collecting and using data. By omitting assists as a dependent measure, the study showed it was taking into effect human judgment errors, which can be common when taking statistics in such a fast paced game. In determining whether an assist took place, it can be difficult to conclude whether the pass from one player set up their teammate for an easy shot with adept passing. While agreeing with the methods used on assists, I do challenge the study’s methods on the fact all other data from the SEC box scores were deemed accurate. While it may be obvious when a player fouls another, shoots the ball, rebounds the ball, and so on, it is unlikely that throughout the entire season of ninety games not a single mistake was made by the statisticians.

Comparatively, another study was done on Atlantic Coast Conference men’s basketball teams to determine if game location had any effect on the outcome of a game. This study looked at team’s records, and five specific variables which were based on performance. Through looking at an entire conference, this study was able to take information from a larger sample. In my opinion, this allowed for a more complete study and examination of home court advantages in the sport of basketball. The outcomes of this study showed that “seven of the eight teams had more wins at home than they did away during the 1990-1991 ACC season…Out of 56 games, the home team won 38 times (68%)” (Pickens, 1994, p. 213). The skill factors which were found to be statistically significant were field goal percentage and assists, while turnovers and free throw percentage approached statistical significance. The idea assists and field goal percentages were high, go hand in hand, as an assist is what leads directly to a field goal basket and a point toward winning.

Overall, these two studies seem to show there is in fact a home court advantage in men’s collegiate level basketball. However, in a comparison of performance variables, it is interesting that there are no real similarities or crossovers. Rebounds, blocked shots, and steals are found to be statistically significant in Varca’s research, however, Pickens’ study did not return the same results. Pickens actually found field goal percentage and assists to be of statistical significance, and turnovers and free throw percentage to only approach significance. Due to the fact Pickens study was completed after Varca’s, he concluded that “although men’s basketball teams in the ACC and SEC have had a home court advantage over many years, the areas of the game in which they have had this advantage have changed randomly. Future research should examine factors such as rule changes, team height, or coaching strategies which may help explain the contradictions between the findings of these studies” (Pickens, 1994, p. 214). It is possible that some study in the future completed on these conferences will confirm a performance variable which statistically plays into the fact of home court advantage existing, however, for now in collegiate men’s basketball it has only been found that a home court advantage exists.

In regards to high school basketball, William Gayton conducted a study on four male varsity basketball teams between 1968 and 1988. Through looking at archival data, he found “statistically significant home advantage for three of the four teams… the average winning percentage at home for all four teams was 61.78% (Gayton, 1995, p. 1345). This study further wanted to look at if the home advantage for high school teams was relatively weaker than those of college and professional levels. Gayton actually found that his results were higher and similar to the results of studies done on other high school and college and professional basketball teams, thus providing proof that “home advantage in high school basketball is similar in strength to what is found at the college and professional levels” (Gayton, 1995, p. 1346). One specific weakness in this study is that when comparing multiple levels of basketball, the influences of travel and fatigue play an affect on individuals differently at each level of the game. Maturity, distances and experience are all different for each level of play and could have confounding results upon this study’s theory that home advantage in high school basketball is similar in strength to what is found at college and professional levels.

In critically looking at the methods Gayton used in his study, by using archival data from only four teams extremely limits the scope of this examination. Using merely four teams out of an entire league leads to questions of whether certain teams were picked in order to show a home court advantage did exist, but only in those four teams, not in the rest of the league. To make this study hold even more value, going back and analyzing all the teams of the league between the years of 1968-1988 would produce more statistically confident on a home court advantage existing in high school basketball.

To continue looking at the high school level, Thout and Kavouras looked at male and female high school basketball teams, and the influence of the two situational variables of opponent ability and game location on precompetitive state anxiety levels within the athletes. This study took a different approach to assessing home court advantage, as it “hypothesized that cognitive and somatic anxiety levels would be higher and self-confidence levels lower away than at home” (Thout & Kavouras, 1998, p. 318). Through administering the “Competitive State Anxiety Inventory minutes prior to competition,” it was found that, “cognitive anxiety levels did not significantly differ according to game location. Further, self-confidence levels were significantly higher at home than away and somatic anxiety levels were significantly higher away than home” (Thout & Kavouras, 1998, p. 318). Due to the fact self-confidence was higher at home, and somatic anxiety was higher at away games, this may suggest a reason why other studies have found home court advantage to exist. Self-confidence gives way to a winning attitude and a belief to perform well, as well as adding to team’s expectations to win when on their home court, while somatic anxiety adds to the nervousness of an individual, and can assist in decreasing winning performances. In this study, further research should consider the facts high school adolescents are inexperienced in competitive, organized sports, and that further research is needed in the role situational variables play in changing the outcomes of cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence.

In conclusion, the literature reviewed was a well rounded grouping which looked at all levels of basketball, from high school to college, to professional. Included as well was research from both American and international teams. The fact there was such a diverse population sampling, and each study still found home advantage exists seems to give way to further proof of a home advantage in the sport of basketball. However, the fact the studies found differences in the specific performance variables which were prominent in winning teams shows that the areas where winning teams had home court advantage changed erratically and are unpredictable. In most of the studies, the confounding evidence included maturity level of the athletes, traveling issues, team cohesion, defensive styles, and the specific differences among actual home courts. Further commonalities between the studies were that, excluding Thout & Kavouras, who looked at situational factors instead of simply game factors and home court advantage, all of the studies methods included looking at box scores as one source of information on game statistics. Also, the studies by Varca, Gomez, et al., and De Rose, all took their information from regular season conference games, excluding pre-season play, and including only games where the teams played each other. This was thought to further eliminate any differences between teams who have played for many years together, and for those teams who have new and incoming players who are not quite used to the program. Through the commonalities of the studies, and despite the fact there were no performance variable overlaps, overall, it can be said a home court advantage exists in the sport of basketball, whether the wins come from rebounds or steals or etc. is yet to be determined.

Reference List

De Rose, D. (2004). Statistical analysis of basketball performance indicators according to home/away games and winning and losing teams. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 47(4), 327-336.

Gayton, F. William, Coombs, Robert. (1995). The home advantage in high school basketball. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 81(3, Pt 2), 1344-1346.

Gomez, M.A., Lorenzo, A., Barakat, R., Ortega, E., Palao, J.M. (2008). Differences in game-related statistics of basketball performance by game location for men’s winning and losing teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 106(1), 43-50.

Leonard, W.M. (1998). Specification of the home advantage: the case of the World Series. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21(1), 41-52.

Pickens, M. (1994). Game location as a determinant of team performance in ACC basketball during 1990-1991. Journal of Sport Behavior, 17(4), 212-216.

Thout, S. M. & Kavouras, S. A. (1998). Effect of perceived ability, game location, and state anxiety on basketball performance. 21(3), 311-321.

Varca, E. Phillip. (1980). An analysis of home and away game performance of male college basketball team. Journal of Sport Psychology. 2(3), 245-257.