Here’s the Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data.

The final Ranking on Team Dashboard Metrics table appears below, and shows that teams’ final competition ladder positions differ most from their rankings on individual metrics as follows:

• Port Adelaide (1st on the ladder): 16th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, 13th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, 6th on Q1 and Q3 performances, and 7th on Q4 performances

• Brisbane Lions (2nd on the ladder): 18th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, 7th on Goals and Points Conceded, and 11th on Q4 performances

• Richmond (3rd on the ladder): 9th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, and 9th on Q4 performances

• Geelong (4th on the ladder): 10th on Q2 performances

• West Coast (5th on the ladder): 10th on Own Scoring Shots, 11th on Q2 performances, 15th on Q4 performances, and 11th on Percent of Quarters Won

• St Kilda (6th on the ladder): 12th on Q3 performances

• Western Bulldogs (7th on the ladder): (Between 4th and 11th on every metric)

• Collingwood (8th on the ladder): 1st on Scoring Shots Conceded, 18th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, 13th on Own Goals and Points, 3rd on Opponent Points, 3rd on Q1 performances, and 14th on Q2 performances

• Melbourne (9th on the ladder): 17th on Q3 performances, and 2nd on Q4 performances

• GWS (10th on the ladder): 15th on Q1 performances, and 4th on Q3 performances

• Carlton (11th on the ladder): 3rd on Q4 performances

• Fremantle (12th on the ladder): 18th on Scoring Shots Generated, 6th on Scoring Shots Conceded, 4th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, 2nd on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, 4th on Goals Conceded, and 5th on Points Conceded

• Essendon (13th on the ladder): 7th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, and 18th on Q1 performances

• Gold Coast (14th on the ladder): 9th on Own Scoring Shot Generation, and 2nd on Q2 performances

• Hawthorn (15th on the ladder): 5th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, and 9th on Own Goals Scored

• Sydney (16th on the ladder): 4th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, and 6th on Q2 performances

• North Melbourne (17th on the ladder): 8th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, 1st on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, and 12th on Q4 performances

• Adelaide (18th on the ladder): (Between 14th and 18th on every metric)

The latest Ranking on Team Dashboard Metrics table appears below, and suggests that success in 2020 has been most associated with:

• Expected Wins (according to the MoS Win Prediction Function)

• Points Conceded

• Scoring Shots Conceded

• Points Scored

• Goals Scored

• Quarters Won

• Q1 Performance

• Scoring Shots Generated

• Goals Conceded

The latest Ranking on Team Dashboard Metrics table appears below, and, given the time, and the fact that I have a truckload of stuff to do before the next round starts tomorrow, will need to tell its own story.

The latest Ranking on Team Dashboard Metrics table appears below, and still shows a surprising number of bottom-half performances by teams in the top-half of the Competition Ladder.

It’s pretty extraordinary, this far into a season, to have three of the bottom five teams on Own Scoring Shot Conversion sitting somewhere in the Top 6 spots on the ladder and, even more so, for the eight best teams on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion to be sitting outside the Top 8.

Based on the latest Team Dashboard statistics, those most correlated with teams’ competition ladder position (adjusted for games played) are:

• Teams’ ranking on the MoS Win Prediction Function (+0.89)

• Teams’ ranking on Points Scored per Game (+0.87)

• Teams’ ranking on Own Scoring Shots per Game and % of Quarters Won (+0.86)

• Teams’ ranking on Goals Scored per Game (+0.83)

• Teams’ ranking on Q1 Performances (+0.80)

• Teams’ ranking on Opponent Scoring Shots per Game (+0.76)

Based on the latest Team Dashboard statistics, those most correlated with teams’ competition ladder position (adjusted for games played) are:

• Teams’ ranking on the MoS Win Prediction Function (+0.89)

• Teams’ ranking on Points Scored per Game (+0.87)

• Teams’ ranking on Own Scoring Shots per Game and % of Quarters Won (+0.86)

• Teams’ ranking on Goals Scored per Game (+0.83)

• Teams’ ranking on Q1 Performances (+0.80)

• Teams’ ranking on Opponent Scoring Shots per Game (+0.76)

So, we still have half of the teams in the Top 8 ranked in the bottom 6 for Own Scoring Shot Conversion, and five of them ranked in the bottom 9 for Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion. What a strange year …

Given all that, though, the 10-year-old MoS Win Prediction Function continues to do a good job of predicting team winning percentages as a function of scoring statistics. The rank correlation between its ordering of the teams and that based on the ladder ordering (adjusted for games played) is now at +0.92.

You know that the season’s probably a weird one when

• the team who’s 1st on Scoring Shot Conversion is 2nd on the competition ladder, and the team who’s 18th is immediately below them and 3rd on the ladder

• the team who’s 4th on the ladder is 10th on Q1 performances, 11th on Q2 performances, and 15th on Q4 performances

• the team who’s 2nd-last on the ladder is 3rd on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, 6th on Q2 performances, and 8th on Q3 performances

• the correlation between competition ladder position and Q4 performances is only +0.26, and that between competition ladder position and Q1 performances is only +0.82

The latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics table appears below and we can now say with confidence that bad kicking is neither good nor bad football. The correlations between teams’ ladder positions and their ordering based on their own or their opponents’ Scoring Shot Conversion rates are now both essentially zero.

That is, truly, extraordinary.

The latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics table appears below.

No in-depth commentary this week other than to note that there are some teams in lofty ladder positions that are performing relatively poorly on some of the metrics (eg the Lions are last on Own Scoring Shot Conversion), and teams towards the cellar that are relatively high-performing on some metrics (eg the Roos are 1st on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion).

The latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics table appears below.

Of all the metrics, the MoS Win Production Function continues to show the highest rank correlation with teams’ ladder positions.

It suggests that:

• Adelaide has won 1.2 games fewer than might be expected given its scoring statistics

• Fremantle has won 1.0 games fewer

• Essendon has won 0.9 games more

• Brisbane Lions and Hawthorn have won 0.8 games more each

Every other team is within 0.6 wins of what would be expected.

The latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics table appears below, and continues to show some surprisingly low rank correlation between the teams’ ladder positions and their rank on particular metrics, specifically:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion: -0.08

• Q4 Performances: +0.06

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.14

• Q2 Performances: +0.31

• Q3 Performances: +0.53

• Conceded Goals per Game: +0.56

So far this season, giving your opponents more easily converted scoring chances, and fading away in Q4s, have had relatively little effect on team success.

Here’s the latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics table, which reveals the following interesting facts:

• Port Adelaide, though Top 2 on every other metric, is 11th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion

• Gold Coast is 12th on Scoring Shot generation

• Brisbane Lions are 18th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, and 15th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion

• Hawthorn are 14th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, and 16th on Q4 performances

• North Melbourne’s statistics are all over the place: bottom half on Opponent Scoring Shot generation, Own Scoring Shot Conversion, Own Goals and Points per Game, and Q1, Q2 and Q3 performances, but top half for all the other metrics including 1st on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion and Q4 Performances

• Adelaide are 6th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, and 4th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, but 18th on both Own and Opponent Scoring Shot generation

Here’s the latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics table. Some commentary maybe next week - it’s late.

It’s a little early to be making too much of the data in the Rankings on Dashboard Metrics table, which appears below, so we’ll leave any commentary for another week or two.

The final table of Rankings on Dashboard Metrics appears below.

There are a number of metrics on which some teams higher on the ladder do surprisingly poorly, and others on which some teams lower on the ladder do surprisingly well, but we’ve covered a number of examples of these in recent weeks, so I’ll leave it to the reader to undertake a final review of these for themselves.

This week, we’ll have one final look at the MoS Win Production Function and what it suggests about how many more or fewer wins teams have recorded relative to what their scoring metrics would suggest they might reasonably have been expected to.

The latest table of Rankings on Dashboard Metrics appears below, one striking feature of which is the contrast between the rankings on metrics for the teams from 1st to 6th on the ladder with those for the teams from 7th and 8th - Essendon and the Western Bulldogs.

• Essendon is no higher than 4th on any metric, and is 10th or worse on 10 of the 14 metrics.

• The Western Bulldogs are 4th or better on only two metrics, and 10th or worse on eight metrics.

• Hawthorn, in contrast, who currently sit 9th on the ladder, are ranked 5th or higher on six metrics, and 10th or worse on only six metrics. They are also 7th on Expected Wins, while the Western Bulldogs are 8th, and Essendon 12th.