Alternative Premier League Table - 2016/17

Alex99

Rehab's Pete Doherty
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
17,303
Everyone's favourite thing returns. I've not followed that nonsense system peterstorey came up with, and instead come up with something vaguely similar:


  • The league is split into three sections - Top, Middle, and Bottom
  • The Top teams are the teams that finished in the CL spots last season
  • The Middle teams are those that finished 5th to 10th
  • The Bottom teams are those that finished 11th to 17th, plus the 3 newly promoted clubs
  • United are classified as a 'Top' team for the other Top teams, but Middle for everyone else
  • Everton are classified as a 'Middle' team for the other Middle teams, but Bottom for everyone else
  • Teams are expected to win all Home fixtures, as well as all away fixtures versus the Bottom 9 teams
  • Teams are expected to draw all away fixtures versus the Middle 6 teams
  • Teams are expected to lose all away fixtures versus the Top 4 teams
  • This leaves the 'par' to win the league at 90 points:
Home Wins: 19 x 3 = 57
Away Wins vs Bottom: 9 x 3 = 27
Away Draws vs Middle: 6 x 1 = 6
Away Losses vs Top: 4 x 0 = 0

Total: 57 + 27 + 6 = 90
  • A team that matches the expected result receives 0 points (e.g. winning at home = 3 points gained from 3 expected, the team receives 0)
  • A team that falls short has the relevant number deducted (e.g. drawing at home = 1 point gained from 3 expected, so the team receives -2)
  • A team that exceeds expectations has the relevant number added (e.g. winning away against a Top side = 3 points gained from 0 expected, so the team receives 3)


I've tracked this all season thus far, but thought it was a bit pointless doing an update until the league took shape so here we are:

  1. Chelsea: 0
  2. Liverpool: -2
  3. Arsenal: -4
  4. Spurs: -4
  5. City: -8
  6. United: -15
  7. West Brom: -17
  8. Southampton: -18
  9. Burnley: -18
  10. West Ham: -18
  11. Everton: -20
  12. Bournemouth: -21
  13. Middlesbrough: -22
  14. Stoke: -23
  15. Leicester: -25
  16. Watford: -26
  17. Sunderland: -27
  18. Palace: -31
  19. Swansea: -32
  20. Hull: -37
Here's how the table looked after 6 and 12 games too:

  1. City: 5
  2. Liverpool: 3
  3. Spurs: 0
  4. Arsenal: -2
  5. Southampton: -3
  6. Everton: -5
  7. Palace: -5
  8. Chelsea: -5
  9. United: -6
  10. Leicester: -6
  11. Burnley: -6
  12. Bournemouth: -6
  13. Watford: -7
  14. West Brom: -8
  15. Hull: -9
  16. Swansea: -9
  17. Sunderland: -9
  18. West Ham: -10
  19. Middlesbrough: -13
  20. Stoke: -14

  1. Liverpool: 1
  2. City: -2
  3. Chelsea: -3
  4. Arsenal: -5
  5. Spurs: -5
  6. Southampton: -9
  7. Everton: -12
  8. Watford: -12
  9. United: -13
  10. West Brom: -13
  11. Burnley: -13
  12. Bournemouth: -14
  13. Leicester: -14
  14. Middlesbrough: -15
  15. West Ham: -15
  16. Sunderland: -16
  17. Stoke: -17
  18. Palace: -18
  19. Swansea: -20
  20. Hull: -24

I'll do the next update at 25 games, and then another at 31 for the run-in.

The range of points that each of the top 6 could have by GW25 is as follows:

Chelsea (0) 8 to -10
Liverpool (-2) 1 to -17
Arsenal (-4) -2 to -20
Spurs (-4) 1 to -17
City (-8) -4 to -22
United (-15) -6 to -26

In case it wasn't obvious, the number on the left is if they win all of their games, and the number on the right is if they lose all of them, so we'd expect them all to end up somewhere in between.

Hopefully not cocked up any maths along the way here.

Points of interest as far as I'm concerned (which assumes this is in any way an accurate way of predicting anything):

  • Liverpool a bit closer to Chelsea than the actual table suggests, but have been slowly dropping points from the early stages of the season, but have an easier run of fixtures coming up than Chelsea (on paper)
  • United a lot further away from the teams above them than the actual table suggests, and have a tough run of fixtures coming up (on paper)
  • Everton actually pure shite
 
There is some worth on the various alternative players, but the biggest problem is that it doesn't capture well the form of the teams, which is a very important thing.

Not good to see us being worse than in real table (i.e, it means that we have had easier matches), but still, there isn't much to it.

RAWK uses a different version of 'Alternative EPL table', which at the moment stands as:

1. Chelsea +2
2. Liverpool -2
3. Spurs -4
4. Arsenal -5
5. City -6
6. United -11
7. West Brom -19
8. West Ham -19
9. Burnley -20
10. Everton -20

It pictures quite the same story as your table.
 
Revan said:
There is some worth on the various alternative players, but the biggest problem is that it doesn't capture well the form of the teams, which is a very important thing.

Not good to see us being worse than in real table (i.e, it means that we have had easier matches), but still, there isn't much to it.

RAWK uses a different version of 'Alternative EPL table', which at the moment stands as:

1. Chelsea +2
2. Liverpool -2
3. Spurs -4
4. Arsenal -5
5. City -6
6. United -11
7. West Brom -19
8. West Ham -19
9. Burnley -20
10. Everton -20

It pictures quite the same story as your table.
Click to expand...

A couple of seasons ago I tried to do a reactive one but it didn't really work because I didn't factor in enough things to ensure everyone ended up with the same points available. A team could end up playing more out of form teams than in form teams, meaning some have less 'points' available than others.

VorZakone said:
Didn't the Caf laugh at RAWK for having this?
Click to expand...

Not so much for having one, but for having variations of them over the years that were very kind to Liverpool. The standout being the "if shots that hit the crossbar counted as goals" table.
 
VorZakone said:
Didn't the Caf laugh at RAWK for having this?
Click to expand...
Most of the people who laughed had no idea what this is, and claimed that Liverpool always wins it which is kind of nonsense (in the end, the RAWK table converges to the real table).

Caf had alternative table long before you were a poster here.
 
I always like the debate about whether these things have any value - I can never really decide either way.
 
Alex99 said:
A couple of seasons ago I tried to do a reactive one but it didn't really work because I didn't factor in enough things to ensure everyone ended up with the same points available. A team could end up playing more out of form teams than in form teams, meaning some have less 'points' available than others.
Click to expand...

Yep, it is very difficult to get a good alternative table that captures both the difficulty of the fixtures and the form of the team. And with the form is very difficult, cause it can drastically change at any time.

Alex99 said:
Not so much for having one, but for having variations of them over the years that were very kind to Liverpool. The standout being the "if shots that hit the crossbar counted as goals" table.
Click to expand...

There hasn't ever been such a table in RAWK. It is always the same format (mostly), which gives no advantage to any team. The 'goals instead the crossbar etc' weren't tables, but were more posts which we laughed it. Then someone in the meltdown thread decided that they win always the alternative table (likely without even reading the OP), and suddenly the RAWK goes into meltdown thread became 'how deluded Scouters win the alternative table, while we win titles'. Hilarious for some time, but gets boring fast and it wasn't ever true.
 
Revan said:
Yep, it is very difficult to get a good alternative table that captures both the difficulty of the fixtures and the form of the team. And with the form is very difficult, cause it can drastically change at any time.



There hasn't ever been such a table in RAWK. It is always the same format (mostly), which gives no advantage to any team. The 'goals instead the crossbar etc' weren't tables, but were more posts which we laughed it. Then someone in the meltdown thread decided that they win always the alternative table (likely without even reading the OP), and suddenly the RAWK goes into meltdown thread became 'how deluded Scouters win the alternative table, while we win titles'. Hilarious for some time, but gets boring fast and it wasn't ever true.
Click to expand...

There are a number of things I'd like to look at. General form, patterns of form (e.g. not winning more than 3 in a row, not winning away), post-European fixtures, etc., it's just finding a way to properly incorporate them.

I think, ideally, you'd want an individual prediction for each team, with that being somewhat reactive as the season progresses.

I definitely remember RAWK having a few daft tables in the past, most of which were quickly shut down in all fairness, but there have been a few with parameters created that seemed to only be there to bump Liverpool up the table. As you've pointed out though, they've never topped any at the end of a season, as they've converged with the real table.
 
Alex99 said:
There are a number of things I'd like to look at. General form, patterns of form (e.g. not winning more than 3 in a row, not winning away), post-European fixtures, etc., it's just finding a way to properly incorporate them.

I think, ideally, you'd want an individual prediction for each team, with that being somewhat reactive as the season progresses.
Click to expand...

Yep, a few different tables that capture different things, and then an average vote on them, might give a better view. Kind of (not exactly the same) as ensemble algorithms in Machine Learning.

Alex99 said:
I definitely remember RAWK having a few daft tables in the past, most of which were quickly shut down in all fairness, but there have been a few with parameters created that seemed to only be there to bump Liverpool up the table. As you've pointed out though, they've never topped any at the end of a season, as they've converged with the real table.
Click to expand...

Their official thread is: http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=329366.0 and in OP there are threads for the last five seasons, always done from the same poster with the same rules. They give some insight on what is going on, although I think that they have been shown to be a slightly worse predictor than the real table (which is to be expected considering the simple rules).
 
Chelsea (0) 8 to -10
Liverpool (-2) 1 to -17
Arsenal (-4) -2 to -20
Spurs (-4) 1 to -17
City (-8) -4 to -22
United (-15) -6 to -26
Click to expand...

so somehow, Chelsea's games being at rated +8 achievable says that they have played more relatively easy games than the others - against which they've dropped 8pts to rate at 0.

Liverpool rate at -2 but have had more difficult games.

not sure I completely understand, but one way of reading this would make Liverpool favourites, they have easier holes left to play & more likely to gain shots to expected par as you've designated that par. Possibly.
 
montpelier said:
so somehow, Chelsea's games being at rated +8 achievable says that they have played more relatively easy games than the others - against which they've dropped 8pts to rate at 0.

Liverpool rate at -2 but have had more difficult games.

not sure I completely understand, but one way of reading this would make Liverpool favourites, they have easier holes left to play & more likely to gain shots to expected par as you've designated that par. Possibly.
Click to expand...
Chelsea being 0 means that they are on course for a 90 points season, Liverpool being -2 means that they are on course for an 88 points season. The difference on 2 points between Chelsea and Liverpool (while in real table is only 6) might be interpreted as Liverpool having had a slighter more difficult run of fixtures, because the real table doesn't account for difficulty of matches, while this table tries to capture it (and on this table, Chelsea is -4 with respect to Liverpool).
 
Last edited:
Hugh Jass said:
What the feck is the alternative league?
Click to expand...
You might try to read the opening post.

I think that Plechazunga's post on storeytime should be as valid as ever:

Plechazunga said:
***REQUEST TO THE MODS***

Can we please have a zero tolerance policy in this thread for gimps coming in saying, "Ha ha is this the table where Arsenal win the league, personally I use the actual table, which shows, y'know, lol, reality..." etc.

If you're not interested in the Storey Table, fine, feck off

Obviously a certain amount of gooner-baiting becomes appropriate later in the season when the Storey Table itself rules them out of contention and then pete claims it's an illusion caused by the vagaries of the fixture list.
Click to expand...
 
Scrumpet said:
This is Storeytime with slightly different tiers.
Click to expand...

Basically, yeah. But his tiers were shit.

Revan said:
Yep, a few different tables that capture different things, and then an average vote on them, might give a better view. Kind of (not exactly the same) as ensemble algorithms in Machine Learning.



Their official thread is: http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=329366.0 and in OP there are threads for the last five seasons, always done from the same poster with the same rules. They give some insight on what is going on, although I think that they have been shown to be a slightly worse predictor than the real table (which is to be expected considering the simple rules).
Click to expand...

The dodgy ones have never been presented as their 'official' one, just something people popped up with for a couple of weeks.

montpelier said:
so somehow, Chelsea's games being at rated +8 achievable says that they have played more relatively easy games than the others - against which they've dropped 8pts to rate at 0.

Liverpool rate at -2 but have had more difficult games.

not sure I completely understand, but one way of reading this would make Liverpool favourites, they have easier holes left to play & more likely to gain shots to expected par as you've designated that par. Possibly.
Click to expand...

The bit you've quoted there basically shows the points that are on offer in this alternate table for each side over the next 6 games. Chelsea are currently on course to reach 90 points, hence the 0, whilst Liverpool are on course to reach 88, hence the -2.

The 8 to -10 for Chelsea means that by winning their next 6 games, Chelsea would be on course for 98 points, but if they lost their next 6, they'd be on course for 80.

The 1 to -17 for Liverpool means that by winning their next 6 games, Liverpool would be on course for 91 points, but if they lost their next 6, they'd be on course for 73.

Essentially, what this demonstrates is that, on paper, Liverpool should find their next 6 easier than Chelsea find their next 6.
 
lonelyred said:
@Alex99

Are bottom teams expected to win away matches against other bottom teams?
Click to expand...

The rules apply for all teams because the "par" is winning the league, so yes, bottom teams are expected to win against other bottom teams, because this assumes every team is aiming for the title. This is also why it tends to get trimmed to the top 4-6 teams after a certain point of the season.

I did consider doing one for relegation, with par set at 40 and a different set of criteria for winning matches, but I decided I didn't care enough to go through 19 weeks of PL matches to work it out. I've done this one since the first game so it's been a lot easier to keep track of.
 
Alex99 said:
Everyone's favourite thing returns. I've not followed that nonsense system peterstorey came up with, and instead come up with something vaguely similar:
Click to expand...

Thank you for the work mate. I shall pay close attention. I've heard that this alternative table has a good predictive value.
 
Every fecking year this gets the same handful of stupid replies.

"What's this?"
"Why is this on here"
"Lol rawk lol"

Read the fecking OP and if you're not interested close the fecking thread.
 
Eboue said:
It's a decent idea but the problem is always putting teams into arbitrary tiers.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. In this format a team is expected to go to Leicester and lose, but pick up a draw at Chelsea. You also have to do some shuffling, so last season's top 4 can get away with coming away from Old Trafford with a defeat, whilst the rest of the table are expected to pick up a point.

Still, something to do.
 
Stolen the RAWK diagram of their table (as I said, with slightly different rules):

VCEKGGQ.png


Points to notice:

1) Liverpool are 2 points better there (with respect to Chelsea) than in real table (+4 on Alex99 table).

2) United are winning matches which we are supposed to win anyway, so we have not raised any ground despite winning all these matches in a row. This also means that we are in a worse position than you would think by looking at the real table and the difference is higher than 3 points.

3) Spurs are doing better than you would think they are, and they are closer to Liverpool than Liverpool is to Chelsea.

4) Manchester City is on free fall.

5) Arsenal is Arsenal. In fourth place even in alternate table.

6) To go in UCL, you would need quite more points than the average one (71), as can be shown by the top 5 teams being quite above that border (green line).
 
Wouldn't it make more sense to have three tiers of teams with 1 to 6 as top teams, 7 to 14 as middle teams and 15 to 20 as bottom teams? From there you had tiers inside the tiers if necessary.
 
@Alex99

Aye, thanks. I suspected I was comparing stuff that didn't need comparing just after I posted it.
 
I find the line of the graph on the RAWK table quite handy, actually.

Up = Good result

Level = tends towards a good result really

Down = Bad result

Then follow the line, and it'll soon tell you the current form trend , who is just inconsistent, who needs a run of results or who is having a run of results of whatever sort.
 
Just looked at the RAWK one, and I don't like that it assumes an unbeaten season to win the league.
 
These tables clearly show (if it wasn't already obvious) that we're going to have to win a lot of games that we're not expected to to get back on track. Recent wins against cannon fodder have got us nowhere really.
 
Alex99 said:
Just looked at the RAWK one, and I don't like that it assumes an unbeaten season to win the league.
Click to expand...
It is still 90 points (like yours), but yep, allowing a few loses (like you did) seems more natural.
 
Leftback99 said:
These tables clearly show (if it wasn't already obvious) that we're going to have to win a lot of games that we're not expected to to get back on track. Recent wins against cannon fodder have got us nowhere really.
Click to expand...

This is it basically. Ultimately, if we fail to make top 4 we'll have paid the price for that shocking run starting at the City defeat, and ending with the win against Spurs. Too many points dropped, not just at home, but against poor sides too.

Chorley1974 said:
We laugh at the RAWK twats for this, please feck off, and don't involve moe caftites in this embarrassing shite.
Click to expand...

Threads like this have been at the very least, reasonably popular for a number of years. If you don't like it, then ignore it. And people laugh at RAWK for something that they don't actually do, at least not in their 'official' version of this. As it stands, they have Liverpool further away from Chelsea in their version of this than I do, and have United closer to the teams above them. Clearly you don't understand this, but at least you've got your cheap laugh at RAWK in, eh?
 
Alex99 said:
This is it basically. Ultimately, if we fail to make top 4 we'll have paid the price for that shocking run starting at the City defeat, and ending with the win against Spurs. Too many points dropped, not just at home, but against poor sides too.



Threads like this have been at the very least, reasonably popular for a number of years. If you don't like it, then ignore it. And people laugh at RAWK for something that they don't actually do, at least not in their 'official' version of this. As it stands, they have Liverpool further away from Chelsea in their version of this than I do, and have United closer to the teams above them. Clearly you don't understand this, but at least you've got your cheap laugh at RAWK in, eh?
Click to expand...

Yes, anything for a laugh at RAWK, and I'll leave 'reasonably popular' to your interpretation. RAWK do this, and they also win this league.
 
Chorley1974 said:
We laugh at the RAWK twats for this, please feck off, and don't involve moe caftites in this embarrassing shite.
Click to expand...
Chorley1974 said:
Yes, anything for a laugh at RAWK, and I'll leave 'reasonably popular' to your interpretation. RAWK do this, and they also win this league.
Click to expand...


Rado_N said:
Every fecking year this gets the same handful of stupid replies.

"What's this?"
"Why is this on here"
"Lol rawk lol"

Read the fecking OP and if you're not interested close the fecking thread.
Click to expand...

Simple enough.
 
@Damien @Raoul

Can you please threadban @Chorley1974 from this thread? I mean, what is his point here? Usually, these types of threads (which are at least as long as were in RAWK) has this type of defense from Wummers like him.
 
@Alex99 great work! Thanks for putting this all together.

I was just giving some thought to two things:
1. The tiering system:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the moment the tiering is based on last season's final position. Whilst this is a relatively good indicator, have you given any thought to using bookie odds at the start of the season to tier the teams? There's definitely reasons not to (for example, more popular teams will generally have better odds), however I think it may help with some of the outliers.

2. Factoring in form:
As you mentioned, the problem with using form is it will most likely result in teams having different expected end of season point totals. As a result, a possible approach is to use some sort of scaling of expected points based on form (need to think through this a bit more). An alternative I thought of is actually having two separate tables:
a. The table you've created. This is both a retrospective and prospective table.
b. A 'current' points table based on form. This would be a purely retrospective table which shows each team's actual points at this stage vs. expected points at this stage where expected takes account of form. To calculate each team's expected points (i.e. to take form into account), you could create a form table before each matchday based on the past 5 matches. Ultimately, this information will just help to explain why your team is in their current position in the first table. For example, it will either show that United are off the pace due to unluckily coming up against in-form teams, or because we just shite at finishing our chances.

Either way, thanks for putting the effort in for this!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.