NE & Historical Home Field Advantage

[NortheasternPJ]

New Engalnd also has arguably the most significant home field advantage in the entire league

 
The Patriots have been outstanding at home, but how do they have the most significant home field advantage in the league?
 
In the division the Bills and Jets play in roughly the same weather conditions.
Miami is clearly at a disadvantage due to the weather
The field is now field turf and heated so there's no giant field advantage.
The crowd at Gillette is not loud by any means (this is coming from a season ticket holder)
 
If you equate home field advantage with "win the most at home" I'd agree, but other than the weather, there's no real home field advantage by what most people consider home factors (Crowd noise, field conditions, weather)
 
I despise the strength of schedule metric within the division, especially with one dominant team. 

 

[Ed Hillel]

I'm using home field advantage based on the fact that they practically never lose there to teams who are not legimiate Superbowl contenders.

 

[soxfan121]

 
This only works if there are two games left between the teams. Otherwise, the team with homefield has the advantage, and New England has home field against the two tougher opponents in the East. New Engalnd also has arguably the most significant home field advantage in the entire league, and they get bonus points for it against a team that plays/practices in Miami's weather most of the time.

 
No, it's not arguable. 
 
Part 2 in case you're interested in weather. 

 

[amarshal2]

I'm using home field advantage based on the fact that they practically never lose there to teams who are not legimiate Superbowl contenders.

This tells us absolutely nothing about their relative home field advantage. It's not a valid point because it in no way accounts for how good the Patriots are and makes no comparison to how much of a boost they get relative to other teams. It also doesn't pass the logic smell test. It's a relatively quiet stadium, there are several other teams with similar or worse weather (GB, Chi, Buff, etc.), and there are no environmental factors of significant (eg altitude).

 

[tims4wins]

I think Ed Hillel just phrased it poorly. All he had to write was that the Patriots are the toughest team in the NFL to beat at home. That's not arguable.

 

[amarshal2]

I think Ed Hillel just phrased it poorly. All he had to write was that the Patriots are the toughest team in the NFL to beat at home. That's not arguable.

 
That's a lot closer to reality but it's also completely arguable.  The Patriots may be the best team in the NFL on a neutral field (arguable) but beyond that, it's easy to argue that the Broncos or Seahawks are tougher to beat at home given the strength of their home field advantage.  
 
If you said the Patriots are the toughest team in the NFL to beat when it's snowing, windy, 15 degrees outside, and the game is played in Gillette then I'd agree with you...but it would just be a guess...and I worded it in a cute way because I'm not sure they'd be any tougher to beat than GB at GB with the same conditions.  

 

[tims4wins]

Have the Pats not won like 35 straight AFC games at home? There is not a tougher team to beat in their own building.

 

[amarshal2]

Tims is correct. The Patriots have the best home record of any team in the NFL in the last 10 years, and since 2003, and since 2002, and since 2001. Ergo, they are the toughest team to beat on the road. 

Yeah, they're the best team of the last decade. Really relevant information for the 2014 Patriots, Broncos, Seahawks, etc. and their quality of play at home. Or are you going to count Tebow and Cutler's home records against Peyton Manning?

 

[amarshal2]

Have the Pats not won like 35 straight AFC games at home? There is not a tougher team to beat in their own building.

I basically agree. But it's totally arguable. I don't know how you can call it unarguable unless that was just a figure of speech.

 

[tims4wins]

Seattle lost at home this year, Denver lost late last year to San Diego, Pats last lost in the playoffs in 2012 (when Manning's Broncos also lost at home). I mean it's inarguable from a % or numbers perspective. From a qualitative angle sure it's arguable.

 

[amarshal2]

I don't understand what this argument is about, because you're so clearly correct. No team in the NFL has been better at home since 2001 than the Patriots. Nobody. Everyone has been worse.

It's fun to rhapsodize about the crowd noise in Seattle or the "tundra" in Green Bay or the thin air in Denver, but the W-L stats are what they are. The Patriots win more in New England than those teams do in their place.

We have had a Hall of Fame Coach and QB for over a decade. That's a hell of a home field advantage.

I mean, I guess we can have some subjective argument about who has a bigger home field edge "right now," and toss out or explain away the larger sample size? I'm not sure why we would, but we could, I guess?

Not sure if serious...
 
Potential definitions of "Home Field Advantage"
 
Definition 1: The advantage or boost a team receives from playing in their home stadium that they would otherwise not have in a neutral site.  This is the commonly accepted definition.  See the link SF121 posted. The Patriots do not have anywhere near the biggest home field advantage by this definition.  
 
Definition 2: The hardest team to beat at home right now.  It's a bizarre definition but by this definition I'm not sure who is the hardest team to beat in their own building right now.  The Pats are certainly in the running for #1.
 
Definition 3: The hardest team to beat at home over the last X years.  I'm pretty sure this isn't home field advantage but you guys are right, by this definition, the New England Patriots have the biggest "Home Field Advantage" since over basically any range of history for more than a decade they have been the toughest team to beat at home (as well as on the road..we'll call that, "Road Field Advantage").

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

Not sure YOU are serious. The point that folks are making is that the Patriots are, by definition and actual RECORD, the toughest team to beat at home and have been for well over a decade. How is this difficult to comprehend?

 

[Stitch01]

Pats in Foxboro have been the toughest out in football because the Pats have been the best team in football for the whole of the ten years (Pats have the best road record over the BB/Brady era as well don't they)? It doesn't say anything about homefield advantage on its own.

Being the best team+playing with even a weak homefield advantage is going to mean a fuckton of wins.

 

[tims4wins]

Thank you mugsy. It is simply a statement of fact. No different than saying Trout had a higher WAR than Cabrera or whatever. Not passing qualitative judgment on who should be MVP.

 

[tims4wins]

Jesus this is stupid. The original comment was something like the Pats are in an advantageous position over Miami and Buffalo because they still have home games left vs. both and they are the hardest team to beat at home. What part of that is controversial?

 

[amarshal2]

Not sure YOU are serious. The point that folks are making is that the Patriots are, by definition and actual RECORD, the toughest team to beat at home and have been for well over a decade. How is this difficult to comprehend?

 
Read my post again.  Apologies, but I edited it after you responded.  I don't know what else to say to anyone who disagrees with it.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

Okay, we all understand each other now, right? Our long national nightmare is over.

 

[Ed Hillel]

This sure blew up. All I meant is that the Pats just don't lose at home. I guess that's not technically homefield advantage, as that's usually used as more of a relative term, but I thought I clarified what I meant well enough in post 51.

 

[Ed Hillel]

And if this is what's going to happen when I step away for a few hours, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take SoSH away from everyone for a while. Let's all play nice, pls.

 

[BrazilianSoxFan]

 
No, it's not arguable. 
 
Part 2 in case you're interested in weather. 

 
Well, one could argue that the value of "H/R W% Split" is not the same for all sets of H/R W%. It's a lot more difficult for, as an example, NWE's to go from 0.705 RW% to 0.864 HW% than for GNB to go from 0.444 RW% to 0.648HW%.

 

[Stitch01]

 
Well, one could argue that the value of "H/R W% Split" is not the same for all sets of H/R W%. It's a lot more difficult for, as an example, NWE's to go from 0.705 RW% to 0.864 HW% than for GNB to go from 0.444 RW% to 0.648HW%.

Point differential doesnt have that issue and gives a similar result.

 

[BrazilianSoxFan]

Point differential doesnt have that issue and gives a similar result.

 
"H/R Pt Split" has the same issue. For the Pats to have a 7.82 split, like Arizona, they would need to have an 8.68 Home Pt Diff, or 2 points over the next highest.
 
Fact is that the Patriots are so good on the road that it's hard for them to be a lot better at home, and they still have the 5th best Home Pt Diff.

 

[amarshal2]

Point differential doesnt have that issue and gives a similar result.

Ehh, I can think of ways in which it could. For example, the Pats are more likely to blow a team out at home and take their foot off the accelerator (it happens, media). And since the Pats are much more likely to blow a team out this could skew the points results.

But overall if you're arguing with that piece it's more exact placement than directionality. I think the biggest factors are probably accounted for fairly well.

Edit: by "you're" I meant "one", not Stitch.

 

[Stitch01]

Ehh, I can think of ways in which it could. For example, the Pats are more likely to blow a team out at home and take their foot off the accelerator (it happens, media). And since the Pats are much more likely to blow a team out this could skew the points results.

But overall if you're arguing with that piece it's more exact placement than directionality. I think the biggest factors are probably accounted for fairly well.

 
I thought of that, but even if it was worth like a point or a point and a half or something for that (and Im not sure we need that much of an adjustment) the Pats advantage still isnt great. No, I dont think there is enough precision to rank order them accurately from 1-32.
 

 
"H/R Pt Split" has the same issue. For the Pats to have a 7.82 split, like Arizona, they would need to have an 8.68 Home Pt Diff, or 2 points over the next highest.
 
Fact is that the Patriots are so good on the road that it's hard for them to be a lot better at home, and they still have the 5th best Home Pt Diff.

The sample size used is also from 1978-2013, the Pats weren't dominant for that whole time period.
 
Not sure why the Pats couldnt still be much better at home if there was a massive homefield advantage.
 
In recent years, yes, the Pats advantage comes from being a really good team regardless of where games are played.  They dont get as much of an advantage from playing at home as other teams.  They do get an advantage playing at home, and since they have been the best team by a decent margin since moving to Gillette they've won a fuckton of games there. That's what all the data says.

 

[BrazilianSoxFan]

New England has the 2nd best road point differential and 4th best road record in that time period. There is just not enough room for improvement.