P075 Travel or cheers? Examining the drivers and mechanisms of home court advantage in the 2020/2021 NBA regular season
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Home court advantage (HCA) in the National Basketball Association (NBA) is well-documented, yet the co-occurring drivers responsible for this advantage have proven difficult to examine in isolation. The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in the elimination of crowds in ~50% of games during the 2020/2021 NBA season, whereas travel remained unchanged. Using this ‘natural experiment’, we investigated the impact of crowds and travel-related sleep and circadian disruption on NBA HCA. Methods 1080 games from the 2020/2021 NBA regular season were analyzed using mixed models (fixed effects: crowds, travel; random effects: team, opponent). Results In games with crowds, home teams won 58.65% of the time and outrebounded (M=2.28) and outscored (M=2.18) their opponents. In games without crowds, home teams won significantly less (50.60%, p = .01) and were outrebounded (M=-0.41, p < .001) and outscored (M=-0.13, p < .05) by their opponents. Further, the increase in home rebound margin fully mediated the relationship between crowds and home points margin (p < .001). No significant sleep or circadian effects were observed. Discussion Taken together, these results suggest that HCA in the 2020/2021 NBA season was predominately driven by the presence of crowds and their influence on the effort exerted by the home team to rebound the ball. Moreover, we speculate that the strict NBA COVID-19 policies may have mitigated the travel-related sleep and circadian effects on the road team. These findings are of considerable significance to a domain wherein marginal gains can have immense competitive, financial, and even historical consequences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".