The Home Advantage in the National Basketball Association Conference Finals and Finals Series From 1979 to 2019: A Mediation Analysis of Offensive and Defensive Skills
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the home advantage effect in decisive National Basketball Association Conference Finals and Finals series playoff games from 1979 to 2019 (the 3-point shot era). We also examined the potential contribution of various offensive- and defensive-based skills and whether these skills mediated the relationship between game status (decisive vs. nondecisive) and outcome (win vs. loss). Overall, we found evidence of a home court advantage with the home team winning 63% of the decisive playoff games and 66% of the nondecisive playoff games. After adjusting for multiple comparisons and regular season win percentage, the home team had significantly more defensive rebounds and steals in Game 5 when trailing 3-1 going into that game. Mediation analyses did not reveal any significant findings when examining the impact of decisive game status on performance through offensive and defensive skills, thus suggesting there are other explanations for the home advantage effect.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it