Examining the home advantage in the National Hockey League: Comparisons among regulation, overtime, and the shootout

Hoffmann, Matt D.; Loughead, Todd M.; Dixon, Jess C.; Crozier, Alyson

doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.09.007

Cited by 10 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For our main analyses, we performed binary logistic regression, using RStudio version 1.2.5001. Based on previous home advantage studies that used similarly structured game-level data (each game appears only once in the dataset; e.g., Doyle & Leard, 2012; Hoffmann et al., 2017; Leard & Doyle, 2011), our initial analysis treated the data as independent observations, following what has been considered to be a reasonable approach (Doyle & Leard, 2012; Leard & Doyle, 2011). The dependent variable in our analysis was home team outcome (i.e., win vs. loss).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We analyzed the contributions of the independent variables in three steps (cf. Hoffmann et al., 2017). In Block 1, we assessed the individual effect of game ending type on home team outcome.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some research has also shown the home advantage to be partly attributable to biased officiating (Moskowitz & Wertheim, 2012). Despite a wealth of supporting evidence for a home advantage in sport (Jamieson, 2010), researchers who have focused on athletes’ psychological and behavioral states have reported instances of a home disadvantage in certain phases of or in specific situations within National Hockey League (NHL) games (Hoffmann et al., 2017; McEwan, 2019; McEwan et al., 2012). These researchers drew upon previous studies from sport (Baumeister & Steinhilber, 1984) and non-sport (Butler & Baumeister, 1998) contexts demonstrating that individuals seemed to “choke” in the presence of supportive (home) audiences in certain critical/high-pressure situations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While McEwan et al. examined the home (dis)advantage in specific situations within specific periods of NHL games (e.g., the shootout), Hoffmann et al. (2017) considered the entirety of NHL games by comparing home teams’ odds of winning in regulation, overtime, and the shootout in 10,534 regular season games that occurred from the 2005–06 through 2013–14 seasons.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Beginning in the 2015–16 season the NHL modified the overtime format to consist of 5-minutes of 3-on-3 hockey (rather than the earlier format of 4-on-4 ), still followed by a shootout if needed. 2 This change raises a question as to whether Hoffmann et al.’s (2017) earlier findings regarding NHL home (dis)advantage patterns from the 4-on-4 overtime era still apply, since 3-on-3 overtime play may place a greater emphasis on individual versus team performance. In the current study, we sought to replicate Hoffmann et al.’s analyses using NHL regular season game data for the four seasons since the implementation of 3-on-3 overtime.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Home Team (Dis)Advantage Patterns in the National Hockey League: Changes Through Increased Emphasis on Individual Performance With the 3-on-3 Overtime Rule

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past research examining National Hockey League (professional ice hockey; NHL) data from the 4-on-4 overtime era (seasons between 2005-06 and 2013-14) revealed an inconsistent home team (dis)advantage pattern such that home teams that were superior to their visiting counterparts had slightly greater odds of winning during regulation play compared to overtime (demonstrating home crowd advantages for team performance during regulation); in contrast, home teams experienced lower odds of winning in the shootout period than in overtime regardless of team quality (thereby demonstrating risks for individual choking from home crowd pressures). In this study, we explored the NHL home (dis)advantage pattern during four more recent seasons (2015-16 through 2018-19) in which the league instituted 3-on-3 play during overtime (perhaps increasing individual pressure for athletes competing in the 3-on-3 overtime period). We used archival data from the regular season (N=5,002 games) to compare home teams’ odds of winning in regulation (with 5-on-5 skaters per team) to overtime (with 3-on-3) and in the shootout, adjusting for the quality of home and visiting teams. We conducted fixed-effects and multi-level logistic regression modeling. Evenly matched home teams were 1.66 times more likely to win than inferior home teams when games concluded in regulation versus overtime. Superior home teams were 4.24 times more likely to win than inferior home teams when games concluded in regulation rather than overtime. Thus, it is apparently more difficult for superior and evenly matched home teams to win in overtime than during regulation, suggesting that such home teams may be susceptible to choking in overtime. In contrast to the earlier 4-on-4 overtime era, home teams did not have lower odds of winning in the shootout compared to overtime. These results may have implications for NHL coaches’ and players’ tactical decision-making.

show abstract