Irrelevant Questions: Are Professional Teams More Likely to Win a Championship if Their Home State Voted for the President?

In an exercise of correlation not causation, I wanted to see if there were any presidents who acted as lucky charms or as jinxes for the states that voted for them. To narrow the analysis, I focused solely on champions in the National Football League (NFL), National Basketball Association (NBA), National Hockey League (NHL), and Major League Baseball (MLB). I also started with the first Super Bowl and based on it on the winner in a given year rather than for the season. For example, the first Super Bowl was in 1967 as part of the 1966-1967 season, so I assumed that the year in question is 1967. The following were the Presidents during that time:

• Lyndon B. Johnson
• Richard Nixon
• Gerald Ford - Editor's note: Since Nixon resigned in 1974, I decided to say Ford was the active president for the 1975 and 1976 years, but used Nixon's electoral win in 1972 as the baseline. This is despite Ford not being on the Nixon ticket in 1972.
• Jimmy Carter
• Ronald Reagan
• George H.W. Bush
• Bill Clinton
• George W. Bush
• Barack Obama
• Donald Trump

Here were the results:

# of Champs in States that voted for the President of the given year

Before we highlight some clear gaps in this analysis, let's look at what we can find:

• Barack Obama seemed to be a lucky charm for states that voted for him, as teams in those states won 27 out of the 32 possible titles (or 84.38% success rate). He was followed by Ford, Johnson (both 75%), and Reagan (71.88%). Obama is also the only president where teams across all sports wont more than 50% of the time.
• Donald Trump seemed to be a jinx for states that voted for him, as teams in those states won 6 out of the possible 16 titles (or 37.25% success rate). He was followed by GW Bush (38.54%) and Nixon (41.67%)
• Baseball teams seemed to benefit most from the boost, winning 35 out of the 53 possible titles (66.04%). Hockey seemed to benefit the least, winning only 28 out of the 53 possible titles (52.83%)
• The Democrat vs. Republican spread is most pronounced in baseball (spread of 32.59%), where baseball teams in states that voted for the Democrat president won 18 out of 21 years (85.71%) vs. baseball teams in states that voted for the Republican president won 17 out of 32 years (53.13%). It is followed by hockey (27.56%), football (15.06%), and basketball (1.14%).

There are some obvious gaps:

1. The number of teams, the team locations, and the state's voting results change, so there's no clear normalization in this analysis.
2. Especially in more recent years (after 2000), there has become a clear urban vs. rural divide when it comes to voting. This means more states with major league teams would tend to vote for Democrats.
3. There are a significant number of Canadian teams in the NHL as well as smattering of Canadian teams in the NBA and MLB. Provinces in Canada obviously do not vote for Presidents.

I tried to normalize the results further by looking at the number of teams in any given year that are in a state that voted for the President vs. the total number of teams, giving everyone an equal chance of winning the championship. I also looked at the average number of votes received from the electoral college. Using these, I was tried to normalize the "luck" vs. the "charm".

% of champions vs. % of teams that voted for the President

This margin analysis provides some interesting insight.

• Obama is the only president where the % of champions was higher than the % of teams (with a fairly significant margin of ~16%).
• All other presidents saw underperformances, but GW Bush actually had the best underperformance (margin of -3%) as there were fewer teams in states that voted for him compared to other presidents. This likely coincides with the fact that GW Bush had the lowest average electoral college totals (excluding Ford) for the Presidents listed.
• Nixon saw the greatest underperformance (margin of -17%).

Percentage points per Electoral College vote

Looking at the percentage points / electoral college votes, we see a similar trend. Obama had the highest performance for each Electoral College vote (24.2 points per electoral college vote) while Nixon had the worst (10.2 points per electoral college vote). Interestingly, Republicans had fewer electoral college points compared to the Democrats. 

What does this mean under a Biden presidency?

Using the average margin vs. % of teams (and no changes in teams in the leagues) as well as the average percentage points per Electoral College vote for Democratic presidents, we would expect 9 of the eventual 16 champions to come from states that voted for Biden. Using Obama's margin (which seems fitting as Biden was Obama's VP) and his percentage points per Electoral College vote for Democratic presidents, that goes up to 12 out of 16 teams. Since baseball seems to be the Democrats strong suit, I'd expect a Democratic state to win the World Series next year (bad news Braves and Rays fans, good news Dodgers, Yankees, Padres, and White Sox fans!). Generally, the first year for Democrat presidents is the worst (both Carter and Clinton went 1-4 in their first year as President), but I'll give Biden a bit of an Obama boost and say that the NBA champ will also be from a Democratic state. I think the Super Bowl champ and the Stanley Cup champ in 2021 will be from a Republican state. Does this mean anything and should you gamble using this information? No! But if it works out...who knows.

Why I'm Not Worried about the Seattle Seahawks as a Chicago Bears fan

Okay this seems to be a really stupid question. But as a Chicago Bears fan, I'm getting crap from a bunch of other people (primarily Packers and Seahawks fans) that think that the Bears are gonna lose the next game against the 8-9 Seahawks. From a win-loss standpoint, the Bears have the edge. But everyone else argues that because the Seahawks beat the Bears in the regular season that the Bears will inevitably lose again in the playoffs. Well this is why that won't happen.

1. The Seahawks beat the Bears before their bye week.

Yes this sounds like a stupid point, but if you watched the Bears before and after their bye (especially those last four games going into the bye), there was a vast difference. I'm not gonna statistically analyze anything, but I'm pretty sure that their quarterback Jay Cutler was sacked much less after the bye. He threw more efficiently and the offense and defense were clicking (except for one minor hiccup against the New England Patriots). As John Madden would say, the quarterback's throwing it, the running back's running it, the defense is playing good defense. They are beatable, but ever since that bye, it seems like Mike Martz, their offensive coordinator, really got his offense going. And of course, the Bears have an exceptional defense.

2. The Seahawks beat the New Orlean Saints using deep passes and the running game.

The Bears play a cover-2 defense. For those of you who don't know what that is, it is pretty much the two safeties play really deep, essentially to stop the big play. It leaves the team vulnerable to short, fast throws, but the Bears mix a great pass rush with good down field coverage. Yes, Matt Hasselbeck, the Seahawks starting QB, is experienced and accurate, but he didn't tear apart the Saints by using a lot of short passes. He hit them up deep. Just look at the pass to Brandon Stokley for the touchdown. He simply beat every single guy, but in the cover-2, there will usually be a safety playing back and ready to tackle Stokley. Speaking about tackling, the Saints did a crappy job on that part. Marshawn Lynch broke 7 or 8 tackles en route to one of the most electrifying plays ever. But against the Bears, they would not allow that. The defensive corps stresses good tackling more than anything. Just imagine Brian Urlacher whiffing on a tackle like that. Inconceivable, no?

3. The Seahawks aren't that great on the road.

The Seahawks went 2-6 on the road. Sure one of those 2 wins was in Soldier Field, but that was Jay Cutler's first game back from an injury. But the Seahawks are atrocious away from home and the Bears, with a 5-3 record at home including wins against the Philadelphia Eagles, Green Bay Packers, and New York Jets, are more than formidable.

There are many other reasons why one team or another is going to come out on top. But these are three main reasons and they are big reasons. Many people slated the Bears to lose their first playoff game. But these same people expected the Seahawks to be gone by then too. All I know is that the last time the Bears played the Seahawks after earning the bye, the Bears ended up in the Super Bowl. Serendipitous or just coincidence? We'll find out Sunday January 16. My guess is the Bears win with a score of 24-7. I just can't imagine another great game by the Seahawks offense against a very strong Bears defense. So all that's left to say is GO BEARS!