In anticipation of requests from those performance analysts who follow this site, below is the final Pythagorean table for the 2010-11 English Football League Championship. The Pythagorean league exponent is 1.70, as usual.
QPR were clear winners but the table appears to say that the second automatic promotion place was a wash between Norwich and Swansea. There weren't many teams that significantly overperformed this season, but several teams underperformed. Watford were the biggest underperformer of all with a -7 Pythagorean residual. Overall, league performance in line with statistical expectations would not have much of a difference with the exception of the second promotion place and Crystal Palace's survival in the Championship.
| League Table | Pythagorean | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team | GP | W | D | L | GF | GA | GD | Pts | W | D | L | Pts | Δ |
| Queens Park Rangers | 46 | 24 | 16 | 6 | 71 | 32 | +39 | 88 | 26 | 12 | 8 | 90 | -2 |
| Norwich City | 46 | 23 | 15 | 8 | 83 | 58 | +25 | 84 | 23 | 11 | 12 | 80 | +4 |
| Swansea City | 46 | 24 | 8 | 14 | 69 | 42 | +27 | 80 | 23 | 12 | 11 | 81 | -1 |
| Cardiff City | 46 | 23 | 11 | 12 | 76 | 54 | +22 | 80 | 22 | 11 | 13 | 77 | +3 |
| Reading | 46 | 20 | 17 | 9 | 77 | 51 | +26 | 77 | 23 | 11 | 12 | 80 | -3 |
| Nottingham Forest | 46 | 20 | 15 | 11 | 69 | 50 | +19 | 75 | 21 | 12 | 13 | 75 | +0 |
| Leeds United | 46 | 19 | 15 | 12 | 81 | 70 | +11 | 72 | 20 | 10 | 16 | 70 | +2 |
| Millwall | 46 | 19 | 13 | 14 | 63 | 47 | +16 | 70 | 20 | 13 | 13 | 73 | -3 |
| Burnley | 46 | 18 | 14 | 14 | 65 | 61 | +4 | 68 | 18 | 12 | 16 | 66 | +2 |
| Leicester City | 46 | 19 | 10 | 17 | 76 | 71 | +5 | 67 | 19 | 11 | 16 | 68 | -1 |
| Hull City | 46 | 16 | 17 | 13 | 52 | 51 | +1 | 65 | 16 | 14 | 16 | 62 | +3 |
| Middlesbrough | 46 | 17 | 11 | 18 | 68 | 68 | +0 | 62 | 17 | 11 | 18 | 62 | +0 |
| Ipswich Town | 46 | 18 | 8 | 20 | 62 | 68 | -6 | 62 | 16 | 12 | 18 | 60 | +2 |
| Watford | 46 | 16 | 13 | 17 | 77 | 71 | +6 | 61 | 19 | 11 | 16 | 68 | -7 |
| Bristol City | 46 | 17 | 9 | 20 | 62 | 64 | -2 | 60 | 17 | 12 | 17 | 63 | -3 |
| Portsmouth | 46 | 15 | 13 | 18 | 52 | 60 | -8 | 58 | 15 | 13 | 18 | 58 | +0 |
| Barnsley | 46 | 14 | 14 | 18 | 55 | 66 | -11 | 56 | 15 | 12 | 19 | 57 | -1 |
| Coventry City | 46 | 14 | 13 | 19 | 54 | 58 | -4 | 55 | 16 | 13 | 17 | 61 | -6 |
| Derby County | 46 | 13 | 10 | 23 | 58 | 71 | -13 | 49 | 14 | 12 | 20 | 54 | -5 |
| Crystal Palace | 46 | 12 | 12 | 22 | 44 | 69 | -25 | 48 | 11 | 12 | 23 | 45 | +3 |
| Doncaster Rovers | 46 | 11 | 15 | 20 | 55 | 81 | -26 | 48 | 12 | 11 | 23 | 47 | +1 |
| Preston North End | 46 | 10 | 12 | 24 | 54 | 79 | -25 | 42 | 12 | 11 | 23 | 47 | -5 |
| Scunthorpe United | 46 | 12 | 6 | 28 | 43 | 87 | -44 | 42 | 9 | 11 | 26 | 38 | +4 |
| Sheffield United | 46 | 10 | 9 | 27 | 43 | 80 | -37 | 39 | 10 | 11 | 25 | 41 | -2 |

Interesting stuff - under any other circumstances Crystal Palace would have probably been relegated, but their record at Selhurst Park was as phenomenal as their record away from home was appalling. If their home form doesn't hold up next season (and there's no reason to believe it will) they'll struggle.
I've bookmarked your site and will definitely spending more time here!
Posted by: Lexrifleman | 06/02/2011 at 06:35 PM
Thank you very much! It is gratifying to read from supporters about how the projections mesh well with how they viewed their team's performance. One possible extension is to create home and away Pythagoreans to drill down into the source of a team's performance, but the resulting table won't fit on the current page layout. I could write CSS to fix the problem or create a new page, but it's low on my priority list.
Posted by: Howard Hamilton | 06/02/2011 at 07:53 PM