tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post4506054353567279500..comments2012-02-06T17:25:20.972-05:00Brian Burkenoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-23960488860348920382011-02-05T11:32:15.092-05:002011-02-05T11:32:15.092-05:00This is excellent analysis that should be extended to future seasons to examine trends. Please give it a shot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-90419555520952038232009-03-11T14:03:00.000-04:002009-03-11T14:03:00.000-04:00Interesting table. One thing that comes to mind is that home field advantage is an advantage but in many cases not enough to get a victory. It would be a lot of work but it might be fun to look at margin of victory/loss and apply it to climate and home field advantage. I love this site by the way.81trucolorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02280571817548405090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-32599321380989708892008-09-03T09:27:00.000-04:002008-09-03T09:27:00.000-04:00Corrected. I must have misread my own table.Brian Burkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12371470711365236987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-75634569066690335932008-09-03T03:23:00.000-04:002008-09-03T03:23:00.000-04:00FYI - You transposed "moderate" and "warm" in the sentence, "The most remarkable result, however, may be the 35% home winning percentage of moderate teams hosting warm teams." And then based the following comment on the incorrect wording noted above: "Perhaps a couple warm teams have been relatively dominant over moderate weather division rivals between '02 and '06."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-46240982688137964532007-11-20T21:42:00.000-05:002007-11-20T21:42:00.000-05:00JKL-Thanks. Great stuff as always. I'll add your article to the ones referenced above. <BR/><BR/>Good point on Seattle. But based on the Late Season Bias paper I linked to, it's a good bet that weather doesn't really factor into things until it gets really cold. Although it's relatively cool year-round, Seattle rarely gets bitter cold. My theory is that it's the near-freezing temps that really affect the dome teams, not a 50 degree day in Sept or Oct.<BR/><BR/>My real problem is that my database goes back only 5 years. Using 4 climate categories and 2 "weather seasons" divides up the data pretty finely, even with 1280 games to consider. I'd add more years from PFR, but it would be quite a chore because I'm going to use team stats to account for relative team strengths in the regressions.Brian Burkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12371470711365236987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-79793914374215834242007-11-20T15:29:00.000-05:002007-11-20T15:29:00.000-05:00Brian, I had written something last year looking at distance, climate, and home field advantage in divisional games.<BR/><BR/>http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=157<BR/><BR/>Now, I didn't look at when the games were played (assuming they were randomly distributed), and just reported the home team winning percentages in series, without separating it out to whether the dome team was at home or the cold team was at home.<BR/><BR/>One thing about your groupings is that there is more diversity within the group than between the teams on the edge of the group. Seattle is just on the edge of the cold teams, and a lot closer to most of those teams than to Dallas or Carolina. In fact, if I recall, Seattle is actually the coolest (or about even with Green Bay) during the first two months of the season. So, I am not sure they really belong in the same grouping.JKLwww.pro-football-reference.comnoreply@blogger.com