Spartan Civilization. Spartan Social Structure: Spartiates:Perioeci:Helots:Women:
A Statistical Analysis of the Performance of Castleton State College's Sports Teams Since the...
31
By: Bryce Kaler and Dominic Heller A Statistical Analysis of the Performance of Castleton Sports Teams since the construction of Spartan Stadium
-
Upload
bryce-kaler -
Category
Data & Analytics
-
view
61 -
download
0
Transcript of A Statistical Analysis of the Performance of Castleton State College's Sports Teams Since the...
By: Bryce Kaler and Dominic Heller
A Statistical Analysis of the Performance of Castleton Sports Teams since the construction of
Spartan Stadium
The objective of our study was to determine whether or not the construction of Spartan Stadium and the turf field has increased the winning percentage of four sports teams, including Men’s Soccer, Field Hockey, Men’s Lacrosse and Women’s Lacrosse.
Objective
The turf was constructed prior to the 2009 season. We collected our information from the Castleton Archives for the four seasons since the turf was built, along the four seasons prior.
We performed multiple One-Way ANOVA tests to determine whether or not the winning percentage was dependent on having a turf field.
Method
We hypothesized that the winning percentage of Castleton’s Sports teams improved after the construction of the turf in 2009.
Hypothesis
Men’s Soccer Home
Year Win Loss Tie Win% Turf2012 5.00 2.00 .00 .71 .002011 10.00 1.00 1.00 .88 .002010 7.00 3.00 .00 .70 .002009 8.00 2.00 2.00 .75 .002008 5.00 5.00 .00 .50 1.002007 11.00 2.00 .00 .84 1.002006 3.00 7.00 .00 .30 1.002005 4.00 2.00 1.00 .64 1.00
ANOVA
WinPerc
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups
.072 1 .072 2.457 .168
Within Groups
.175 6 .029
Total
.247 7
Field Hockey Home
Year Win Loss Tie Win% Turf
2012 9.00 .00 .00 1.00 .00
2011 8.00 4.00 .00 .67 .00
2010 6.00 2.00 .00 .75 .00
2009 5.00 6.00 .00 .45 .00
2008 10.00 1.00 .00 .90 1.00
2007 6.00 3.00 .00 .67 1.00
2006 3.00 5.00 .00 .38 1.00
2005 3.00 4.00 .00 .43 1.00
ANOVA
WinPerc
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups
.030 1 .030 .551 .486
Within Groups
.329 6 .055
Total
.359 7
Men’s Lacrosse Home
Year Win Loss Tie Win% Turf
2012 7.00 3.00 .00 .70 .00
2011 8.00 4.00 .00 .67 .00
2010 9.00 2.00 .00 .82 .00
2009 7.00 2.00 .00 .78 .00
2008 5.00 1.00 .00 .83 1.00
2007 3.00 2.00 .00 .60 1.00
2006 3.00 2.00 .00 .60 1.00
2005 3.00 4.00 .00 .43 1.00
ANOVA
WinPerc
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups
.032 1 .032 1.990 .208
Within Groups
.096 6 .016
Total
.128 7
Women’s Lacrosse Home
Year Win Loss Tie Win% Turf
2012 7.00 3.00 .00 .70 .00
2011 8.00 1.00 .00 .89 .00
2010 9.00 2.00 .00 .82 .00
2009 9.00 1.00 .00 .90 .00
2008 3.00 4.00 .00 .43 1.00
2007 1.00 3.00 .00 .25 1.00
2006 1.00 4.00 .00 .20 1.00
2005 2.00 3.00 .00 .40 1.00
ANOVA
WinPerc
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups
.514 1 .514 49.263 .000
Within Groups
.063 6 .010
Total
.577 7
With the exception of Women’s Lacrosse, the construction of Spartan Stadium did not contribute to a higher home winning percentage. Although the records did generally improve, the ANOVA tests showed it was not significant. Because of this, we decided to total the home records of all four teams and run a cumulative ANOVA on the combined records.
Conclusion
Cumulative Records at Home
Year Win Loss Tie Win% Turf
2012 5.00 2.00 .00 .71 .00
2011 10.00 1.00 1.00 .88 .00
2010 7.00 3.00 .00 .70 .00
2009 8.00 2.00 2.00 .75 .00
2008 5.00 5.00 .00 .50 1.00
2007 11.00 2.00 .00 .84 1.00
2006 3.00 7.00 .00 .30 1.00
2005 4.00 2.00 1.00 .64 1.00
2012 7.00 3.00 .00 .70 .00
2011 8.00 4.00 .00 .67 .00
2010 9.00 2.00 .00 .82 .00
2009 7.00 2.00 .00 .78 .00
2008 5.00 1.00 .00 .83 1.00
2007 3.00 2.00 .00 .60 1.00
2006 3.00 2.00 .00 .60 1.00
2005 3.00 4.00 .00 .43 1.00
Cumulative Records at Home Cont.2012 9.00 .00 .00 1.00 .00
2011 8.00 4.00 .00 .67 .00
2010 6.00 2.00 .00 .75 .00
2009 5.00 6.00 .00 .45 .00
2008 10.00 1.00 .00 .90 1.00
2007 6.00 3.00 .00 .67 1.00
2006 3.00 5.00 .00 .38 1.00
2005 3.00 4.00 .00 .43 1.00
2012 7.00 3.00 .00 .70 .00
2011 8.00 1.00 .00 .89 .00
2010 9.00 2.00 .00 .82 .00
2009 9.00 1.00 .00 .90 .00
2008 3.00 4.00 .00 .43 1.00
2007 1.00 3.00 .00 .25 1.00
2006 1.00 4.00 .00 .20 1.00
2005 2.00 3.00 .00 .40 1.00
ANOVA
WinPerc
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups
.447 1 .447 14.613 .001
Within Groups
.918 30 .031
Total
1.365 31
As a result of the increased sample size, the ANOVA test we ran on the cumulative home records of the four teams proved to be significant.
Conclusion
After the ANOVA test on the home records of these teams was found to be significant, we decided to collect data for these same teams’ overall records (home, away and neutral) over the same time span.
Since we are both athletes, we hypothesized that, as a result of having turf at home, the away and neutral records would improve as well, showing that the overall winning percentages were dependent on the construction of the turf.
Total Records
Men’s Soccer Total
Year Win Loss Draw Win% Turf
2012 11.00 7.00 .00 .61 .00
2011 13.00 7.00 2.00 .64 .00
2010 13.00 6.00 .00 .68 .00
2009 12.00 8.00 3.00 .59 .00
2008 11.00 9.00 1.00 .55 1.00
2007 13.00 8.00 1.00 .61 1.00
2006 8.00 11.00 2.00 .43 1.00
2005 9.00 8.00 1.00 .53 1.00
ANOVA
WinPercent
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups
.020 1 .020 5.214 .062
Within Groups
.023 6 .004
Total
.043 7
Field Hockey Total
Year Win Loss Draws Win% Turf
2012 17.00 5.00 .00 .77 .00
2011 12.00 8.00 .00 .60 .00
2010 12.00 7.00 .00 .63 .00
2009 9.00 10.00 .00 .47 .00
2008 14.00 8.00 .00 .64 1.00
2007 12.00 7.00 .00 .63 1.00
2006 6.00 11.00 .00 .35 1.00
2005 8.00 9.00 .00 .47 1.00
ANOVA
WinPerc
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups
.019 1 .019 1.106 .333
Within Groups
.102 6 .017
Total
.120 7
Men’s Lacrosse Total
Year Win Loss Draw Win% Turf
2012 11.00 9.00 .00 .55 .00
2011 12.00 7.00 .00 .63 .00
2010 13.00 6.00 .00 .68 .00
2009 11.00 7.00 .00 .61 .00
2008 13.00 7.00 .00 .65 1.00
2007 10.00 5.00 .00 .67 1.00
2006 10.00 5.00 .00 .67 1.00
2005 9.00 6.00 .00 .60 1.00
ANOVA
WinPerc
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups
.001 1 .001 .702 .434
Within Groups
.012 6 .002
Total
.014 7
Women’s Lacrosse Total
Year Win Loss Draw Win% Turf
2012 11.00 7.00 .00 .61 .00
2011 12.00 5.00 .00 .71 .00
2010 13.00 6.00 .00 .68 .00
2009 15.00 4.00 .00 .79 .00
2008 10.00 8.00 .00 .56 1.00
2007 6.00 7.00 .00 .46 1.00
2006 5.00 7.00 .00 .42 1.00
2005 3.00 8.00 .00 .27 1.00
ANOVA
WinPerc
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups
.146 1 .146 15.193 .008
Within Groups
.058 6 .010
Total
.204 7
Again, with the exception of Women’s Lacrosse, the construction of Spartan Stadium was shown to be insignificant of a higher, total winning percentage. Since our previous study on home winning percentage was revealed to be significant after increasing the sample size, we decided to do the same with total winning percentage.
Conclusion
Cumulative Total RecordsYear Win Loss Draw Win% Turf
2012 17.00 5.00 .00 .77 .00
2011 12.00 8.00 .00 .60 .00
2010 12.00 7.00 .00 .63 .00
2009 9.00 10.00 .00 .47 .00
2008 14.00 8.00 .00 .64 1.00
2007 12.00 7.00 .00 .63 1.00
2006 6.00 11.00 .00 .35 1.00
2005 8.00 9.00 .00 .47 1.00
2012 11.00 7.00 .00 .61 .00
2011 13.00 7.00 2.00 .64 .00
2010 13.00 6.00 .00 .68 .00
2009 12.00 8.00 3.00 .59 .00
2008 11.00 9.00 1.00 .55 1.00
2007 13.00 8.00 1.00 .61 1.00
2006 8.00 11.00 2.00 .43 1.00
2005 9.00 8.00 1.00 .53 1.00
Cumulative Total Records Cont.2012 11.00 9.00 .00 .55 .00
2011 12.00 7.00 .00 .63 .00
2010 13.00 6.00 .00 .68 .00
2009 11.00 7.00 .00 .61 .00
2008 13.00 7.00 .00 .65 1.00
2007 10.00 5.00 .00 .67 1.00
2006 10.00 5.00 .00 .67 1.00
2005 9.00 6.00 .00 .60 1.00
2012 11.00 7.00 .00 .61 .00
2011 12.00 5.00 .00 .71 .00
2010 13.00 6.00 .00 .68 .00
2009 15.00 4.00 .00 .79 .00
2008 10.00 8.00 .00 .56 1.00
2007 6.00 7.00 .00 .46 1.00
2006 5.00 7.00 .00 .42 1.00
2005 3.00 8.00 .00 .27 1.00
ANOVA
WinPerc
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups
.097 1 .097 9.436 .004
Within Groups
.308 30 .010
Total
.405 31
Once again, the increase in sample size showed that this study was significant, showing that the increase in winning percentage of the four teams analyzed was dependent on the construction of the turf.
Conclusion
