ESPN’s Bill Barnwell released a formula to dictate who has the best home-field advantage in the NFL. The Kansas City Chiefs came in 29th.
Now I’m not as familiar with ESPN analyst Bill Barnwell’s work as I should be, but either way I have numerous issues with one of his pieces. In a recent article, Barnwell gave a perfect example of overanalyzing a subject. With the formula he used, he decided that the Kansas City Chiefs have one of the worst home-field advantages in the league.
In fact, his impression of Kansas City must be so low he really didn’t even mention the Chiefs. In an article about home-field advantage, the Chiefs are not mentioned. What bothers me the most about this article is that this guy gets paid really good money to put out pure bologna while I do this for free. More jabs to come.
I’ll break down his methods as soon as my blood pressure medicine kicks in. The more I read Barnwell’s article, the more I have to believe that even those who aren’t Chiefs fans would notice their absence. He makes his points throughout suggesting crowd noise is not important when considering how tough a place is to play. My suspicions were confirmed, this guy has never watched a football game in his life. Now obviously of course he has, he is a well established writer. Here’s the breakdown and my analysis of his analysis.
Barnwell’s determining method
He starts the article playing the “if” game. Suggesting that no team wants to travel to Foxboro to play the New England Patriots, however, he states that in “must-win games” between 2008 and 2011 they went 3-3. Losing to Mark Sanchez and Joe Flacco twice. To further make his case he brings up the Seattle Seahawks. He mentions the Calvin Johnson fumble in 2015 that allowed their home record to be 4-4.
His fingers actually typed out the words that crowd noise is not a concerning factor.
"Basing anything on eight games per season or something anecdotal like decibel levels or temperature at kickoff won’t give us the full picture of who actually enjoys the best home-field advantage in the NFL. And likewise, just looking at a team’s record at home can be misleading. If a team sweeps all of their road games and goes 6-2 at home to finish 14-2, do they really have a significant home-field advantage, or are they just a very good team anywhere? And does a home-field advantage conferred by a rowdy fan base transfer over from an old stadium to a new one?won’t give us the full picture of who actually enjoys the best home-field advantage in the NFL”."
Barnwell went back to 1990 and calculated the average point differential both at home and away. He gave us homework in providing a formula to get each teams observed point differential, continuing to state that point differential is more important than a team’s win-loss record. Apparently it’s a better model for predicting future win-loss records.
Paragraph after paragraph he continues to contradict the true meaning of home-field advantage.
Barnwell’s proof
Finally he provides a list. He has the Seattle Seahawks ranked with the top home-field advantage. I’ll share a few notables on the list.
4. San Francisco 49ers
5. Buffalo Bills
6. Detroit Lions
12. New York Jets
13. LA Chargers
14. New England Patriots
16. Jacksonville Jaguars
21. Cleveland Browns
29. Kansas City Chiefs
After supplying us all with this ridiculous list of teams, even he himself mentions he can’t believe it either. Yet he continues to write. So am I to take this article as fake news? Is this August Fool’s Day?
Here is what he did say about the Chiefs.
"It’s not clear noise is an issue, either, with the Chiefs and Raiders both ranking in the bottom five. If you’re wondering whether the Raiders turned things around as the organization roared back to life last season, their home-field advantage in 2016 was only observed to be 0.5 points per game. For whatever the Seahawks are doing in Seattle, sound isn’t the only factor driving their success at home."
This guy should ask those Patriots if crowd noise is a factor. While he’s at it, ask John Elway, and ask those Raiders about crowd noise. One must ask themselves why a team fears traveling to certain destinations. Maybe it’s the bathrooms or perhaps the brand of bratwurst a team uses that determines tough home-field advantage.
Barnwell’s second method
He continues with a second method. This one specific to current stadiums, for those who have had a new stadium built between 1990 and 2011. Yes, there’s yet another list. Here are a few examples below.
3. New York Jets
4. San Francisco 49ers
5. LA Rams
10. Kansas City Chiefs
12. Jacksonville Jaguars
26. New England Patriots
31. Dallas Cowboys
I am convinced this man pulled names out of a hat as I had to read this article over ten times to try to get a grip on what the point to all of this was. I gave up as the contradictions outweighed everything else. It seems as though his objective was to take everything not related to what we the general public relate to home-field advantage.
Barnwell’s takeaway
"Baltimore and Seattle are the two toughest places to play on the road. Regardless of how we calculate the numbers, the Ravens and Seahawks consistently rank among the organizations that improve most dramatically at home. If we calculate this by sheer winning percentage as opposed to point differential, as an example, the Ravens have the largest home-field advantage in the league since 2007, winning 72.5 percent of their games at home but just 40 percent on the road. The Seahawks are third, with the Vikings splitting the two."
The author wrote an article stating point differential was more important than winning percentage. In closing he appears to state the two teams with the best home-field advantage are the two teams with the best winning percentage since 2007. He constantly refers to different dates to go back to while trying to present his formula as legit.
Mr. Taylor’s takeaway
Let me go out on a limb and say when opposing players almost unanimously say a certain place is one of the toughest places to play, you can take that as football gospel. Even if some yahoo states the exact opposite.
The bottom line is we all know where the toughest places to play are. There isn’t much concern for teams going into Cleveland, and there hasn’t been since the dates his “data” goes back to. I can not imagine a place like Arrowhead Stadium, that at times makes it impossible to call plays, is not consciously mentioned as a tough place to play. Consider that when teams come to Arrowhead, they actually have to game plan for crowd noise.
Home-field advantage is invincible like the wind. You know it is there, but you can’t draw it on a piece of paper. You can draw the effects of wind, trees leaning a certain way, hair being out-of-place or a certain smell being carried to ones nostrils. To battle his position on this subject, the fact that a team goes into Arrowhead or Foxboro stadiums and wins does not change how hard it is to play there. It’s the fear of a name. It’s knowing that when you visit ,it’s going to be difficult to win because of the presence that team’s home field presents.
That is home-field advantage.