League One 2018/19
League One has three promotion places and four relegation spots, meaning than there is more scope for a PPG model to be wrong. However, the top two teams, Barnsley and Luton, would have remained top had the season finished on March 7th and been simulated. Both ended up with slightly fewer points than expected, but it was enough to hold off Sunderland. The play-off spots would also have remained the same, but Sunderland would have finished third and potentially been promoted under the PPG model. They amassed almost seven points fewer than a PPG model thought they would, whilst Charlton picked up almost nine more.
The bottom would be very different. Wimbledon would have been relegated, but their great escape defied the odds. They pulled in almost 11 points more than the model suggested they would and finished outside the bottom four. Sadly, Bradford couldn’t have been saved, but Plymouth, Walsall and Scunthorpe would all also have stayed up. Rochdale, who showed some super form towards the end of the season, would have gone down, as would Bristol Rovers. That means the PPG model would have got just three of the seven positions in League One correct.
| Home | Away | Expected PPG | |||||||||
| P | Pts | PPG | P | Pts | PPG | Home | Away | Total | Actual | Diff | |
| Luton Town | 18 | 46 | 2.56 | 17 | 29 | 1.71 | 12.78 | 10.24 | 98.01 | 94 | -4.01 |
| Barnsley | 17 | 39 | 2.29 | 18 | 31 | 1.72 | 13.76 | 8.61 | 92.38 | 91 | -1.38 |
| Sunderland | 18 | 38 | 2.11 | 16 | 30 | 1.88 | 10.56 | 13.13 | 91.68 | 85 | -6.68 |
| Portsmouth | 18 | 33 | 1.83 | 17 | 32 | 1.88 | 9.17 | 11.29 | 85.46 | 88 | 2.54 |
| Charlton Athletic | 17 | 35 | 2.06 | 18 | 25 | 1.39 | 12.35 | 6.94 | 79.30 | 88 | 8.70 |
| Doncaster Rovers | 17 | 33 | 1.94 | 17 | 22 | 1.29 | 11.65 | 7.76 | 74.41 | 73 | -1.41 |
| Peterborough United | 18 | 24 | 1.33 | 17 | 31 | 1.82 | 6.67 | 10.94 | 72.61 | 72 | -0.61 |
| Coventry City | 17 | 26 | 1.53 | 18 | 24 | 1.33 | 9.18 | 6.67 | 65.84 | 65 | -0.84 |
| Blackpool | 17 | 26 | 1.53 | 17 | 22 | 1.29 | 9.18 | 7.76 | 64.94 | 62 | -2.94 |
| Fleetwood Town | 18 | 27 | 1.50 | 17 | 22 | 1.29 | 7.50 | 7.76 | 64.26 | 61 | -3.26 |
| Burton Albion | 18 | 26 | 1.44 | 17 | 18 | 1.06 | 7.22 | 6.35 | 57.58 | 63 | 5.42 |
| Accrington Stanley | 16 | 21 | 1.31 | 17 | 20 | 1.18 | 9.19 | 7.06 | 57.25 | 55 | -2.25 |
| Wycombe Wanderers | 17 | 28 | 1.65 | 18 | 15 | 0.83 | 9.88 | 4.17 | 57.05 | 53 | -4.05 |
| Plymouth Argyle | 17 | 25 | 1.47 | 18 | 16 | 0.89 | 8.82 | 4.44 | 54.27 | 50 | -4.27 |
| Scunthorpe United | 17 | 21 | 1.24 | 18 | 20 | 1.11 | 7.41 | 5.56 | 53.97 | 46 | -7.97 |
| Southend United | 18 | 20 | 1.11 | 17 | 21 | 1.24 | 5.56 | 7.41 | 53.97 | 50 | -3.97 |
| Gillingham | 17 | 18 | 1.06 | 18 | 22 | 1.22 | 6.35 | 6.11 | 52.46 | 55 | 2.54 |
| Shrewsbury Town | 18 | 28 | 1.56 | 17 | 12 | 0.71 | 7.78 | 4.24 | 52.01 | 52 | -0.01 |
| Walsall | 17 | 19 | 1.12 | 18 | 20 | 1.11 | 6.71 | 5.56 | 51.26 | 47 | -4.26 |
| Oxford United | 18 | 26 | 1.44 | 17 | 13 | 0.76 | 7.22 | 4.59 | 50.81 | 60 | 9.19 |
| Bristol Rovers | 18 | 17 | 0.94 | 16 | 20 | 1.25 | 4.72 | 8.75 | 50.47 | 54 | 3.53 |
| Rochdale | 17 | 15 | 0.88 | 18 | 19 | 1.06 | 5.29 | 5.28 | 44.57 | 54 | 9.43 |
| Bradford City | 17 | 20 | 1.18 | 18 | 13 | 0.72 | 7.06 | 3.61 | 43.67 | 41 | -2.67 |
| AFC Wimbledon | 17 | 12 | 0.71 | 18 | 18 | 1.00 | 4.24 | 5.00 | 39.24 | 50 | 10.76 |
Conclusion
It is impossible to come up with a suitable measure by which to end the season, but this does show that some clubs might be aggrieved by PPG with a 7/13 hit rate. I think in League Two, the difference would have been negligible, although Yeovil fans might not agree.
Anyone looking at the bottom of League One might argue against the PPG system. It would be hard to see Bolton or Southend survive, but what of Tranmere, on the cusp of survival? Bristol Rovers are their equivalent last season, they would have gone down under a PPG system and yet they finished 15th. Also, Plymouth and Scunthorpe were relegated and they were 14th and 16th respectively on March 7th, but ended up being relegated.
