MetLife Stadium opened in 2010. Over that time period, the Jets are 30-26 at home (a hair below-average), while the Giants are 32-24 (right at league average). And, over that same time period, the Jets are 22-34 on the road (slightly below-average), while the Giants are 26-30 in road games (slightly above-average). ^[1]Note that this includes the two games where the Jets and Giants played at MetLife Stadium; the “road” team won in both games.

So the Jets are +8 in games at MetLife, while the Giants are +6. In home games, the Giants have outscored opponents by 142 points (16th-best), while the Jets have only outscored opponents by 51 points (23rd-best). In road games, the Giants are at -121 (also 16th-best), while the Jets are at -344 points (28th-best).

The Giants had a great year at home in 2016 while the Jets did not; the numbers were much different a year ago, when the Jets appeared to be gaining a much better home field advantage at MetLife than the Giants. That was driven, in large part, by performance in one score games. From 2010 to 2015, the Giants were 8-13 in home games decided by 7 or fewer points, while the Jets are 13-8; that made the Giants one of the worst teams at home in close games, and the Jets were one of the best. But last year, the Giants went 6-1 in home games decided by a touchdown or less, and the Jets went 0-3.

So the conclusion in today’s post? The Jets and Giants are getting about the same home field advantage from MetLife Stadium. That in and of itself isn’t necessarily an important conclusion ^[2]Although past research showed the Giants may have been better at Giants Stadium. But there are two worthwhile takeaways from this post.

One, of course, is to beware of small sample sizes. Through six years, the Jets looked to be much better at MetLife Stadium than the Giants were. So if this post was written a year ago, “Why Are The Jets Better At Home Than The Giants?” would have been an appropriate title. With a larger sample, that question seems to have been answered: it was because the effect wasn’t real.

The second is that just because a study shows a result of “no effect” or “there is no difference” doesn’t mean the study isn’t worthwhile. To the contrary, an answer of zero or no difference can be just as meaningful as any other answer. That’s not necessarily a sexy takeaway, but you shouldn’t only publish research that is contrary to conventional wisdom or shows a big effect.