Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, California, United States.
Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Percept Mot Skills. 2021 Feb;128(1):424-438. doi: 10.1177/0031512520966138. Epub 2020 Oct 21.
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.
过去的研究检查了 4 对 4 加时赛时代（2005-06 赛季至 2013-14 赛季）的国家冰球联盟（职业冰球；NHL）数据，发现主场球队（不利）优势模式不一致，即与来访球队相比，实力较强的主场球队在常规赛中获胜的几率略高，而在加时赛中则更高（这表明主场观众在常规赛中对球队表现有优势）；相比之下，无论球队质量如何，主场球队在点球大战中获胜的几率都低于加时赛（这表明主场观众的压力会使个别球员感到紧张）。在这项研究中，我们探讨了 NHL 在过去四个赛季（2015-16 赛季至 2018-19 赛季）中的主场（不利）优势模式，在此期间，联盟在加时赛中实行了 3 对 3 比赛（这可能增加了在 3 对 3 加时赛中竞争的运动员的个人压力）。我们使用常规赛的档案数据（N=5002 场比赛）来比较主场球队在常规赛（每队 5 对 5 球员）中获胜的几率与加时赛（3 对 3）和点球大战中的几率，并调整了主场和客场球队的质量。我们进行了固定效应和多层次逻辑回归建模。当比赛在常规赛中结束时，实力相当的主场球队获胜的可能性是实力较弱的主场球队的 1.66 倍，而在加时赛中则是 4.24 倍。因此，实力较强和实力相当的主场球队在加时赛中获胜比在常规赛中更难，这表明这样的主场球队可能容易在加时赛中紧张。与早期的 4 对 4 加时赛时代不同，主场球队在点球大战中获胜的几率并不低于加时赛。这些结果可能对 NHL 教练和球员的战术决策有影响。
