The latest Ranking on Dashboard metrics data appears below, and shows that the strongest rank correlations with ladder position are associated with:

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.85)

• Percentage of Quarters Won (+0.84)

• Opponent Scoring: Points (+0.76)

• Scoring Shots Conceded (+0.75)

• Q4 Performances (+0.73)

• Own Scoring: Points (+0.70)

The weakest rank correlations with ladder position are associated with:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.11)

• Q1 Performances (+0.31)

Carlton also remain Top 4 on the ladder despite bring ranked 10th on Scoring Shots, 11th on Scoring Shots Conceded, 12th on Q3 and Q4 Performances, 13th on Point and Goal Scoring, and 14th on Scoring Shot Conversion and Q1 Performances. It’s really Q2s and defence that has seen them climb to where they are.

The latest Ranking on Dashboard metrics data appears below, and shows that the strongest rank correlations with ladder position are associated with:

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.84)

• Percentage of Quarters Won (+0.84)

• Own Scoring: Goals (+0.73) and Behinds (+0.71)

• Scoring Shots Conceded (+0.69) and Points Conceded (+0.68)

• Q3 Performances (+0.66)

The weakest rank correlations with ladder position are associated with:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.21)

• Q1 Performances (+0.44)

The latest Ranking on Dashboard metrics data appears below, and shows that, at this point in the season, defence has been more important than offence.

We have:

• The rank correlation between Ladder Position and Conceded Scoring Shots per Game is +0.78, while that between Ladder Position and Recorded Scoring Shots per Game is just +0.32

• The rank correlation between Ladder Position and Conceded Points per Game is +0.78, while that between Ladder Position and Recorded Points per Game is just +0.59

The MoS Win Production Function continues to provide a good fit with Ladder Position. The rank correlation between the two now stands at +0.93.

It’s still far too early to be making much of the Ranking on Dashboard metrics data, which appears below, but it is interesting to note that:

• Three of the teams in the Top 8 of the Competition Ladder are in the bottom 8 on scoring

• Ladder position is positively rank-correlated with every metric on the Dashboard, but especially with the rankings on MoS Win Production, Quarters won, and points concession

It’s early days, so we’ll not be attempting to draw any insights from the data this week.

The final Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data for season 2022 appears below, and shows that the metrics most associated with success this season were:

• Percentage of Quarters Won

• MoS Expected Wins using the Win Production Function

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game

• Points Conceded per Game

• Goals Conceded per Game

• Performance in Q1s and Q3s

• Own Scoring Shots per Game

The metrics least associated with success were:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion

• Performance in Q2s

Sydney finish as the team with the highest worst ranking on any metric (9th) and Collingwood and Western Bulldogs, amongst the Top 8 teams, as the teams with the lowest best ranking on any metric (5th).

The Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data appears below and shows that the two metrics most highly-correlated with ladder position are MoS Win Production Function Expected Wins, and Quarters Won.

Those metrics align particularly well for the teams that are currently in Finals positions, with the exceptions of Collingwood, whose scoring statistics rank them only 10th, despite their 5th-placed position and, to a lesser extent, Carlton, who rank only 10th on Quarters won. On that metric in particular, the Western Bulldogs might well be expected to have a place in the Top 8 on the ladder.

On that Win Production Function metric, every team has won plus or minus 2 games relative to expectation except Collingwood (+3.9 wins), and Port Adelaide (-2.9 wins).

The Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data appears below and still shows that there is still no team that can claim to be in the Top 10 on every metric.

That’s true even for the teams currently in the Top 8 on the competition ladder where we have:

• Geelong: 15th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion and on Own Scoring Shot Conversion

• Collingwood: 16th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, 11th on Goals Conceded, and 12th on Q2 Performances

• Melbourne: 16th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion

• Sydney: 12th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion 10th on Q1 Performances, and 11th on Q2 Performances

• Brisbane Lions: 10th on Q2 Performances

• Fremantle: 13th on Own Scoring Shots per Game, 13th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, 11th on Goals Scored per Game, 12th on and on Points Scored per Game, 14th on Q2 Performances, and 10th on Q3 and Q4 Performances.

• Carlton: 11th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, 13th on Q3 Performances, and 12th on Q4 Performances

• Richmond: 12th on Scoring Shots Conceded per Game, and 10th on Points Conceded per Game

Scoring Shot Conversion - Own and Opponents’ - continues to be largely irrelevant this season.

The Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data appears below and still shows that there is no team that can claim to be in the Top 10 on every metric.

That’s true even for the teams currently in the Top 8 on the competition ladder where we have:

• Geelong: 14th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion and 17th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion

• Melbourne: 16th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion

• Collingwood: 16th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, and 11th on Win Production Function Expected Wins

• Sydney: 11th on Q1 Performances, and 12th on Q2 Performances

• Brisbane Lions: 11th on Q2 Performances

• Fremantle: 12th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, 13th on Goals and on Points Scored per Game, and 14th on Own Scoring Shots per Game and Q2 Performances

• Carlton: 11th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, 12th on Q3 Performances, and 14th on Q4 Performances

• St Kilda: 12th on Goals and on Points Scored per Game, 12th on Q1 Performances, and 13th on Own Scoring Shots per Game and Own Scoring Shot Conversion

The Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data appears below and shows mostly the same relationships as it did last week with maybe the greatest standout results belonging to the Pies, who now sit 4th on the competition ladder despite being:

• 11th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion

• 16th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion

• 9th on Goals Scored per Game

• 11th on Goals Conceded per Game

• 9th on Points Conceded per Game

• 9th on Q2 and Q3 Performances

• 11th on Expected Wins (according to the MoS Win Production Function)

The only metric on which they are ranked higher than their competition ladder position is Q1 Performances.

The Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data appears below and shows that one metric has been negatively correlated with competition ladder position (Own Scoring Shot Conversion) and that two more have been only somewhat correlated (Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion and Q2 Performances).

Perhaps never before has there been a worse time to use the phrase “bad kicking is bad football” …

The other metrics on the Dashboard are showing correlations in the +0.7 to +0.94 range with the highest being for the MoS Win Production Function and the Percentage of Quarters Won. Perhaps surprisingly, ranking on Q1 Performances are more highly correlated with ladder position than are performances in any other quarter.

The Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data appears below and continues to show how unimportant own and opponent scoring shot conversion has been this season. So much so, in fact that the teams that are last and third-last on own scoring shot conversion sit in the top two spots on the ladder, and the teams in third-last and fourth-last on opponent scoring shot conversion occupy first and sixth on the ladder.

Meantime, the MoS Win Production Function continues to rank teams very similarly to their ladder positions, with the notable exception being Collingwood, who sit 6th on the ladder but 12th on expected wins.

The Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data appears below and suggests that the teams most out of place on the competition ladder, according to the MoS Win Production Function are:

More wins and/or higher on the ladder than expected

• Collingwood: +1.9 wins, enough only for 11th

• Fremantle: +1.2 wins

• Carlton: +0.9 wins, enough only for 8th

Fewer wins and/or lower on the ladder than expected

• Gold Coast: -1.8 wins

• GWS: -1.6 wins

• Western Bulldogs: -1.5 wins, enough for 7th

• Hawthorn: -1.1 wins

• Richmond: -1.1 wins, enough for 4th

• Port Adelaide: -1.0 wins

The Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data appears below and doesn’t much show anything newly startling, aside perhaps from the surprisingly low correlation between teams’ ladder positions and their ranking on Own and Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion.

It really has become a game now that’s mostly about generating Scoring Shots for yourself, and depriving your opponents of same rather than worrying about the quality of those shots for yourself or for your opponents. The fact that the teams 11th, 12th, 15th and 16th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, and 10th, 13th, 14th and 18th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion all sit in the Top 8 is about all you need to know.

The Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data appears below and continues to show that the MoS Win Production Function is the most reliable predictor of a team’s ladder position, and their ranking on Own Scoring Shot Conversion the least reliable.

Currently, the teams filling 2nd through 4th on the ladder are ranked 12th, 14th, and 16th on their Conversion.

Fremantle is an interesting case, and appears to have secured its spot almost solely on defence. They are 1st on Opponent Scoring Shots, 8th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, and thereby 2nd on Goals and Points Conceded. But, they are also 11th on Own Scoring Shots, 12th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, and 13th on Goals and Points Scored.

The Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data appears below and shows that the number one spot on every metric except Q2 Performances is held by a team currently in the top 8 spots on the ladder (ordered by competition points per game played and then percentage).

Four of the number two spots - those for the two Conversion metrics and those for the two Own Scoring metrics - are held by teams outside the top 8, as are four of the number three spots.

The most reliable predictor of a team’s ladder position continues to be its Expected Win percentage according to the Win Production Function.

The Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data appears below and shows that every team in the current Top 8 on the ladder (which has been ordered based on competition points per game and then percentage) is in the bottom 8 on at least one metric, and in the bottom 6 on at least one metric for all but two of the teams.

Ranking on Scoring Shot Conversion (own and opponent) and Q2 performances remain, relatively speaking, unimportant in terms of teams’ ordering on the ladder.

The Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data appears below and shows that every team in the Top 8 on the ladder is in the bottom 8 on at least one metric, and in the bottom 6 on at least one metric for all but one of the teams.

Ranking on Scoring Shot Conversion and Q2 performances are, relatively speaking, unimportant in terms of teams’ ordering on the ladder.

The Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data appears below and reveals how starkly unimportant Scoring Shot Conversion has been so far this season in that four of the nine lowest-ranked teams on this metric are currently in the Top 8 on the ladder, and the two teams on equal-sixth on the metric sit in 17th and 18th spots.

The Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data appears below, and still sees a number of teams sitting in the Top 8 on the competition ladder despite being ranked 10th or lower on a number of seemingly-important metrics.

We have:

• Melbourne, 10th on Scoring Shot Conversion

• Fremantle, 11th on Scoring Shots, 12th on Scoring Shot Conversion, and 11th on Own Goals and Points per Game

• Carlton, 12th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, 13th on Q3 Performances, and 12th on Q4 Performances

• Sydney, 11th on Q1 Performances

• St Kilda, 14th on Scoring Shot Conversion, 10th on Goals per game, 10th on Q1 Performances, 13th on Q2 Perfomances, and 11th on Q4 Performances

• Geelong, 16th on Scoring Shot Conversion, 17th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, and 10th on Q3 Performances

• Richmond, 14th on Opponent Scoring Shots, 10th on Goals Conceded, 11th on Points Conceded, and 13th in Q4 Performances