Adi Wyner

@adiwyner

Professor of Statistics and Data Science. Co-Faculty director of Wharton Sports Analytics and Business Initiative. co-host of Wharton Moneyball.

1 986Followers

305Following

927Posts total

20.7KViews on collected posts

Ultimi post

Adi Wyner@adiwyner3 Sep

@adiwyner @tejfbanalytics @RyanPaganetti The data doesn’t explain their intentions it only explains whether it was effective if indeed they did it intentionally 390 views · 2 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Adi Wyner@adiwyner3 Sep

11/11 Credit to @AlexPrejean, whose analysis of the Patriots’ kicking gap helped frame this thread. We add attempt-level expectations, home-road comparisons, clustered tests and FDR control: https://t.co/8SbxNzFroi 561 views · 4 likes · 0 reposts · 3 replies Open on X →

Adi Wyner@adiwyner3 Sep

9/11 Blocking: NE opponents had 3.86% of attempts blocked versus 2.15% elsewhere (unadjusted p=.010), accounting for roughly one-third of the missing makes. Remove every block and opponents still finish 4.07 points below expectation. 495 views · 2 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Adi Wyner@adiwyner3 Sep

10/11 Verdict: the data show an unusual NE opponent-FG effect—not compelling evidence of a home-only dirty trick. Blocking, weather, kicker mix and special-teams factors? Paganetti’s finding is fun to ponder, but could have happened without the video. 551 views · 3 likes · 0 reposts · 2 replies Open on X →

Adi Wyner@adiwyner3 Sep

The home field effect was larger: −6.46 points at home versus −3.41 on the road. Statistically, no: the home-road difference has p=.38. The data cannot isolate a special Gillette-only mechanism with strong evidence. 7/11 521 views · 3 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Adi Wyner@adiwyner3 Sep

8/11 Yet, across all venues, NE opponents went 398-for-518: 76.8% versus 81.8% expected—a −4.94-point gap and 25.6 fewer makes. Clustered p=.0012; 32-team FDR q=.0386. NE was the only FDR-significant negative effect. 497 views · 2 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Adi Wyner@adiwyner3 Sep

5/11 At home, NE opponents went 196-for-260: 75.4% versus 81.8% expected. The −6.46-point residual was the largest home-opponent suppression among 32 teams. Clustered p=.0016—but after two-sided BH-FDR control, q=.0526: borderline. 552 views · 2 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Adi Wyner@adiwyner3 Sep

On the road, home kickers facing NE went 202-for-258: 78.3% versus 81.7% expected. The −3.41-point residual was also the league’s lowest, but it was not significant: clustered p=.139 and FDR q=.701. 6/11 535 views · 2 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Adi Wyner@adiwyner3 Sep

2/11 Paganetti reports that Gillette’s video board showed a reverse view with offset yellow uprights during opponent kicks. That's a testable prediction: NE’s suppression should be distinctly stronger at home than on the road after adjusting for factors that effect kick. 782 views · 4 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Adi Wyner@adiwyner3 Sep

4/11 NE’s kickers were excellent: 533-for-618, or 86.2%, versus 84.5% expected (Vinatieri and Gostkowski !! ). But the overall +1.77-point edge was not huge or significant (clustered p=.22). 586 views · 3 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Adi Wyner@adiwyner3 Sep

3/11 I modeled all 18,461 regular-season FG attempts from 2001–19. Each kick’s expected probability accounts for distance, indoor/outdoor status, their interaction, and season. I then tested team effects with standard errors clustered by game. 664 views · 3 likes · 0 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Adi Wyner@adiwyner3 Sep

Did the Patriots use a dirty home-field trick on opposing kickers? @RyanPaganetti’s video-board finding says yes. The data says: not so fast. The home-road difference isn’t significant, blocks explain part, and home-only evidence is borderline 🧵 1/11 https://t.co/M8w6i2uLK4 14.5K views · 61 likes · 12 reposts · 3 replies Open on X →

Rispetto ad account della stessa dimensione

12 post degli ultimi 90 giorni, accanto alla fascia di under 10K follower. sotto i pari sia per copertura sia per interazione.

Visualizzazioni mediane552questo account4 175mediana per under 10K

Copertura, %27.77%questo account250.82%mediana per under 10K

Interazione, %0.62%questo account1.41%mediana per under 10K

Metrica	Questo account	Mediana per under 10K	Rapporto
Visualizzazioni mediane per post	552	4 175	0.13×
Copertura (visualizzazioni ÷ follower)	27.77%	2.5× audience	0.11×
Tasso di interazione	0.62%	1.41%	0.44×

Altri account di questa fascia → Confronta con un altro account → Come sono costruiti questi parametri →

Growth & engagement

How the posts we collected actually performed: views and reaction rate post by post, what the audience did with them, and where the follower count goes.

Views per post

14.5K3 Sep

664

586

782

535

552

497

521

551

495

561

390

Last 12 collected posts, oldest on the left. The scale is logarithmic: one post can outrun the rest a hundred times over.

Engagement rate per post

0.54%3 Sep

0.60%

0.68%

0.64%

0.56%

0.54%

0.60%

0.77%

0.91%

0.61%

1.25%

0.77%

Reactions — likes, reposts, replies and quotes — divided by views. Median for under 10K accounts is 1.41%.

What the audience does

Likes63.2%91 in total

Reposts8.3%12 in total

Replies11.8%17 in total

Quotes2.1%3 in total

Bookmarks14.6%21 in total

Share of every reaction we collected for this account. Replies mean argument, reposts mean endorsement, bookmarks mean the post was worth keeping.

The follower curve appears once this account has two daily snapshots — we take one a day, and this one is on its first.

Ultimi post

Rispetto ad account della stessa dimensione

Growth & engagement

Views per post

Engagement rate per post

What the audience does

Account simili