Whenever I look at the premiership or any other football table mid-season it occurs to me that the display is mismatched according to the amount of games teams have played. This is more prevalent later in the season when there’s a bigger discrepancy between games
Now of course you can simply look at the “games played” and “points column” but for a bit of fun, I thought I’d apply some of the nerd-dom I usually look at MoneySaving with to see if I could make football league tables a little easier to view relative positions. After all one of the joys of a Sunday morning is looking through the tables’ minutiae.
The Current Premiership Football Table
I grabbed the figures below from BBC sport on on the evening of 18 October 2009.
I opted for the basic one without goals as for the purposes of the redesign that’s irrelevant, though the goals scored could be included too.
|
The current table
|
||||
|
Team
|
Played
|
Goal Difference
|
Points
|
|
| 1. |
Man Utd
|
9
|
12
|
22
|
| 2. |
Chelsea
|
9
|
11
|
21
|
| 3. |
Tottenham
|
9
|
8
|
19
|
| 4. |
Arsenal
|
8
|
16
|
18
|
| 5. |
Man City
|
8
|
7
|
17
|
| 6. |
Aston Villa
|
8
|
5
|
16
|
| 7. |
Sunderland
|
9
|
4
|
16
|
| 8. |
Liverpool
|
9
|
9
|
15
|
| 9. |
Stoke
|
9
|
-3
|
12
|
| 10. |
Burnley
|
9
|
-10
|
12
|
| 11. |
Everton
|
8
|
-2
|
11
|
| 12. |
Blackburn
|
8
|
-6
|
10
|
| 13. |
Wigan
|
9
|
-7
|
10
|
| 14. |
Bolton
|
8
|
-2
|
8
|
| 15. |
Wolverhampton
|
9
|
-7
|
8
|
| 16. |
Fulham
|
7
|
-4
|
7
|
| 17. |
Birmingham
|
9
|
-5
|
7
|
| 18. |
Hull
|
8
|
-12
|
7
|
| 19. |
West Ham
|
8
|
-4
|
5
|
| 20. |
Portsmouth
|
9
|
-10
|
3
|
New Premiership Table with added stats.
Here is the same table but with three new columns added. As it’s early in the season the impact is still small, but it makes a difference.
The new columns are
A. Pts dropped.
Displaying points won is accurate for teams lower in the table, as there it’s all about scraping as many points as you can. Yet for teams near the top you expect them to win most matches, so teams who’ve played less will be disproportionately disadvantaged in the table.
By displaying the points dropped and comparing that, you get to see their relative performance; it’s a bit like the “par” score in golf.
B. Avg points per game.
This stat isn’t in itself so intuitive, but I’ve added it as the next column is worked out based on it – it does however average out a team’s performance so far.
C. Relative points.
This is the number of points the teams would be on if they’d all played the same number of games based on their average. It’s worked out by multiplying the avg no. points per game by the number of games played by the team in first position.
|
Table with added stats
|
|||||||
|
Team
|
Played
|
Goal Difference
|
Points
|
Points dropped
|
Avg points per game
|
Relative points
|
|
| 1. |
Man Utd
|
9
|
12
|
22
|
5
|
2.44
|
22
|
| 2. |
Chelsea
|
9
|
11
|
21
|
6
|
2.33
|
21
|
| 3. |
Tottenham
|
9
|
8
|
19
|
8
|
2.11
|
19
|
| 4. |
Arsenal
|
8
|
16
|
18
|
6
|
2.25
|
20.3
|
| 5. |
Man City
|
8
|
7
|
17
|
7
|
2.13
|
19.1
|
| 6. |
Aston Villa
|
8
|
5
|
16
|
8
|
2
|
18
|
| 7. |
Sunderland
|
9
|
4
|
16
|
11
|
1.78
|
16
|
| 8. |
Liverpool
|
9
|
9
|
15
|
12
|
1.67
|
15
|
| 9. |
Stoke
|
9
|
-3
|
12
|
15
|
1.33
|
12
|
| 10. |
Burnley
|
9
|
-10
|
12
|
15
|
1.33
|
12
|
| 11. |
Everton
|
8
|
-2
|
11
|
13
|
1.38
|
12.4
|
| 12. |
Blackburn
|
8
|
-6
|
10
|
14
|
1.25
|
11.3
|
| 13. |
Wigan
|
9
|
-7
|
10
|
17
|
1.11
|
10
|
| 14. |
Bolton
|
8
|
-2
|
8
|
16
|
1
|
9
|
| 15. |
Wolverhampton
|
9
|
-7
|
8
|
19
|
0.89
|
8
|
| 16. |
Fulham
|
7
|
-4
|
7
|
14
|
1
|
9
|
| 17. |
Birmingham
|
9
|
-5
|
7
|
20
|
0.78
|
7
|
| 18. |
Hull
|
8
|
-12
|
7
|
17
|
0.88
|
7.9
|
| 19. |
West Ham
|
8
|
-4
|
5
|
19
|
0.63
|
5.6
|
| 20. |
Portsmouth
|
9
|
-10
|
3
|
24
|
0.33r
|
3
|
Table Reordered by points dropped.
Doing this substantially reorders the table. While I think it probably has significance for the upper part of the league, with both Arsenal and Man City (hoorah) moving ahead of Tottenham, I suspect it’s less appropriate lower in the table, where teams tend to drop points with every game, so the order simply reflects how many games are played.
|
Table reordered by points dropped
|
|||||||
|
Team
|
Played
|
Goal Difference
|
Points
|
Points dropped
|
Avg points per game
|
Relative points
|
|
| 1. |
Man Utd
|
9
|
12
|
22
|
5
|
2.44
|
22
|
| 2. |
Chelsea
|
9
|
11
|
21
|
6
|
2.33
|
21
|
| 3. |
Arsenal
|
8
|
16
|
18
|
6
|
2.25
|
20.3
|
| 4. |
Man City
|
8
|
7
|
17
|
7
|
2.13
|
19.1
|
| 5. |
Tottenham
|
9
|
8
|
19
|
8
|
2.11
|
19
|
| 6. |
Aston Villa
|
8
|
5
|
16
|
8
|
2
|
18
|
| 7. |
Sunderland
|
9
|
4
|
16
|
11
|
1.78
|
16
|
| 8. |
Liverpool
|
9
|
9
|
15
|
12
|
1.67
|
15
|
| 9. |
Everton
|
8
|
-2
|
11
|
13
|
1.38
|
12.4
|
| 10. |
Blackburn
|
8
|
-6
|
10
|
14
|
1.25
|
11.3
|
| 11. |
Fulham
|
7
|
-4
|
7
|
14
|
1
|
9
|
| 12. |
Stoke
|
9
|
-3
|
12
|
15
|
1.33
|
12
|
| 13. |
Burnley
|
9
|
-10
|
12
|
15
|
1.33
|
12
|
| 14. |
Bolton
|
8
|
-2
|
8
|
16
|
1
|
9
|
| 15. |
Wigan
|
9
|
-7
|
10
|
17
|
1.11
|
10
|
| 16. |
Hull
|
8
|
-12
|
7
|
17
|
0.88
|
7.9
|
| 17. |
West Ham
|
8
|
-4
|
5
|
19
|
0.63
|
5.6
|
| 18. |
Wolverhampton
|
9
|
-7
|
8
|
19
|
0.89
|
8
|
| 19. |
Birmingham
|
9
|
-5
|
7
|
20
|
0.78
|
7
|
| 20. |
Portsmouth
|
9
|
-10
|
3
|
24
|
0.33r
|
3
|
Table reordered by Relative points.
I think this is perhaps the fairer overall way to demonstrate the table. The order is much closer to the standard table, but as the season goes on where one team mid-table has played three or four less than the next, it will correct those anomalies. For example Everton has moved up an appropriate couple of places here.
|
Table reordered by relative points
|
|||||||
|
Team
|
Played
|
Goal Difference
|
Points
|
Points dropped
|
Avg points per game
|
Relative points
|
|
| 1. |
Man Utd
|
9
|
12
|
22
|
5
|
2.44
|
22
|
| 2. |
Chelsea
|
9
|
11
|
21
|
6
|
2.33
|
21
|
| 3. |
Arsenal
|
8
|
16
|
18
|
6
|
2.25
|
20.3
|
| 4. |
Man City
|
8
|
7
|
17
|
7
|
2.13
|
19.1
|
| 5. |
Tottenham
|
9
|
8
|
19
|
8
|
2.11
|
19
|
| 6. |
Aston Villa
|
8
|
5
|
16
|
8
|
2
|
18
|
| 7. |
Sunderland
|
9
|
4
|
16
|
11
|
1.78
|
16
|
| 8. |
Liverpool
|
9
|
9
|
15
|
12
|
1.67
|
15
|
| 9. |
Everton
|
8
|
-2
|
11
|
13
|
1.38
|
12.4
|
| 10. |
Stoke
|
9
|
-3
|
12
|
15
|
1.33
|
12
|
| 11. |
Burnley
|
9
|
-10
|
12
|
15
|
1.33
|
12
|
| 12. |
Blackburn
|
8
|
-6
|
10
|
14
|
1.25
|
11.3
|
| 13. |
Wigan
|
9
|
-7
|
10
|
17
|
1.11
|
10
|
| 14. |
Bolton
|
8
|
-2
|
8
|
16
|
1
|
9
|
| 15. |
Fulham
|
7
|
-4
|
7
|
14
|
1
|
9
|
| 16. |
Wolverhampton
|
9
|
-7
|
8
|
19
|
0.89
|
8
|
| 17. |
Hull
|
8
|
-12
|
7
|
17
|
0.88
|
7.9
|
| 18. |
Birmingham
|
9
|
-5
|
7
|
20
|
0.78
|
7
|
| 19. |
West Ham
|
8
|
-4
|
5
|
19
|
0.63
|
5.6
|
| 20. |
Portsmouth
|
9
|
-10
|
3
|
24
|
0.33r
|
3
|
Of course this is just a bit of fun, though as someone who enjoys the tables perhaps even more than the football, I’d love to see some of these adopted.
