Before I begin I’ll say, as the title suggests, this is simply a thought experiment. The thoughts are also all mine, which is kind of dangerous in science, so I’m looking any input/thoughts/suggestions you may have. I like this idea and think, as a community, we could take this somewhere.
As I’ve mentioned previously the idea of a replacement level team is one who’s performance is essentially the minimum you could reasonably expect from a team in a given league. To determine replacement level for the Premiership I took the ten teams with the worst TSR and looked at how they performed.
I’ll throw a table in here later but to sum up their season statistically As per the table below these teams have an average TSR of 0.377 (i.e., they take ~38% of shots in the matches they play) and score a combined total of 315 points, resulting in relegation on each and every occasion. Importantly they also get pretty average luck, ~7 Premiership teams a season will finish the season with a PDO below the combined 980 these teams recorded.
So far so salient. This is where the thinking starts.
In theory we can then take this information and suggest that ‘replacement level’ performances account for about 630 points per Premiership season (31.5 points multiplied by 20 teams). We also know that each year Premiership teams collectively accumulate approximately 1040 points. Subtract the ‘replacement level points’ from the ‘total points’ and you essentially have the points that teams are playing (and paying) for here.
Basically I’m intimating the 20 teams are fighting for a share of ~410 points (1042 – 630). The best teams will typically take 50-60 of these, the worst will typically take a number around zero.
So how many of these ‘points above replacement’, or ‘PAR’s’ (hat-tip to baseball) are required to finish in a certain position in the Premiership?
Let’s leave it there for now. As I said at the start I’m looking for any comments or suggestions you have. Does it at least sound like I’m following a lucid thread of thought here?