The latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics graphic appears below, and reveals that team rankings on the following metrics are most highly correlated with ladder position:

• Q3 Performances (+0.88)

• Percent of Quarters Won (+0.85)

• Own Points per Game (+0.75)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.74)

• Expected Wins from MoS Win Production Function (+0.72)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.7)

Least highly correlated are:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.22)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.27)

• Q2 Performances (+0.4)

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game (+0.43)

• Opponent Goals per Game (+0.49)

The latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics graphic appears below, and reveals that team rankings on the following metrics are most highly correlated with ladder position:

• Percent of Quarters Won (+0.85)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.79)

• Q3 Performances (+0.78)

• Own Points per Game (+0.76)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.75)

• Q1 Performances (+0.72)

Least highly correlated are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.23)

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.30)

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game (+0.42)

• Opponent Goals per Game (+0.45)

• Opponent Points per Game (+0.46)

• Q2 Performances (+0.49)

For the first time in as long as I can remember, the MoS Win Production Function rankings are not highly correlated with actual ladder position, and that is largely because the scoring metrics for Essendon, Port Adelaide and Collingwood don’t support their relatively high competition ladder rankings, and the scoring metrics for Western Bulldogs and Brisbane Lions don’t support their relatively low competition ladder rankings.

The latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics graphic appears below, and reveals that team rankings on the following metrics are most highly correlated with ladder position:

• Percent of Quarters Won (+0.87)

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.84)

• Own Points per Game (+0.81)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.81)

• Q3 Performances (+0.79)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.78)

Least highly correlated are:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.35)

• Q2 Performances (+0.4)

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game (+0.41)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.43)

Overall, arguably, the the Western Bulldogs’ and Essendon’s rankings look least congruent with their ladder positions, especially when you look at what the MoS Win Production Function suggests for their expected win rates given their scoring statistics.

The latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics graphic appears below, and reveals that team rankings on the following metrics are most highly correlated with ladder position:

• Percent of Quarters Won (+0.89)

• Own Points per Game (+0.87)

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.86)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.85)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.79)

• Q3 Performances (+0.74)

Least highly correlated are:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.34)

• Q2 Performances (+0.42)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.49)

Overall, arguably, the the Western Bulldogs’ rankings look least congruent with their ladder position, although Essendon still has legitimate claims, too.

The latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics graphic appears below, and reveals that team rankings on the following metrics are most highly correlated with ladder position (noting that I order the ladder based on Competition Points per Game and then Percentage, which differs from what you’ll see on the AFL and other sites).

• Percent of Quarters Won (+0.93)

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.92)

• Own Points per Game (+0.89)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.87)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.86)

• Q3 Performances (+0.85)

• Opponent Points per Game (+0.72)

• Opponent Goals per Game (+0.70)

Least highly correlated are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.41)

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.48)

Overall, arguably, the the Western Bulldogs’ rankings look least congruent with their ladder position, although Essendon and maybe Carlton have legitimate claims, too.

The latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics graphic appears below, and reveals that team rankings on the following metrics are most highly correlated with ladder position (noting that I order the ladder based on Competition Points per Game and then Percentage, which differs from what you’ll see on the AFL and other sites).

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.93)

• Own Points per Game (+0.93)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.88)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.88)

• Percent of Quarters Won (+0.86)

• Q3 Performances (+0.80)

Least highly correlated are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.28)

• Q2 performances (+0.40)

• Opponents’ Scoring Shots per Game (+0.43)

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.48)

Overall, the Brisbane Lions’ rankings look least congruent with their ladder position. North Melbourne’s statistics are pretty wild: 14th to 18th on every metric except Own Scoring Shot Conversion where they’re 1st.

The latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics graphic appears below, and reveals that team rankings on the following metrics are most highly correlated with ladder position (noting that I order the ladder based on Competition Points per Game and then Percentage, which differs from what you’ll see on the AFL and other sites).

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.95)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.90)

• Own Points per Game (+0.90)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.89)

• Percent of Quarters Won (+0.89)

• Q3 Performances (+0.73)

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game (+0.70)

Least highly correlated are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.14)

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.32)

• Q4 performances (+0.49)

Overall, the Brisbane Lions’ and possibly St Kilda’s rankings look least congruent with their ladder position.

The latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics graphic appears below, and reveals that team rankings on the following metrics are most highly correlated with ladder position (noting that I order the ladder based on Competition Points per Game and then Percentage, which differs from what you’ll see on the AFL and other sites).

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.89)

• Own Points per Game (+0.88)

• Quarters Won (+0.87)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.86)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.83)

• Q3 Performances (+0.76)

• Opponent Points per Game (+0.68)

Least highly correlated are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.31)

• Q4 performances (+0.44)

Overall, the Brisbane Lions’ rankings look least congruent with their ladder position.

The latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics graphic appears below, and reveals that team rankings on the following metrics are most highly correlated with ladder position (noting that I order the ladder based on Competition Points per Game and then Percentage, which differs from what you’ll see on the AFL and other sites).

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.93)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.86)

• Quarters Won (+0.86)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.81)

• Own Points per Game (+0.80)

• Opponent Goals per Game (+0.79)

• Opponent Points per Game (+0.77)

• Q3 Performances (+0.76)

Least highly correlated are:

• Q2 performances (+0.42)

• Q4 performances (+0.44)

• Q1 performances (+0.45)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.47)

Here is the latest Rankings on Dashboard Metrics graphic, which still really doesn’t tell much of a story.

(Note that I order the ladder based on Competition Points per Game and then Percentage, which differs from what you’ll see on the AFL and other sites).

Here, firstly, is the Rankings on Dashboard Metrics graphic, which really doesn’t tell much of a story after only 13 games. We’ll talk more about it in the weeks to come.

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

• Percentage of Quarters Won (+0.91)

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.85)

• Opponent Scoring: Goals (+0.80)

• Opponent Scoring: Points (+0.79)

• Scoring Shots Conceded (+0.78)

• Scoring Shots Generated (+0.73)

• Own Scoring: Goals (+0.73)

• Own Scoring: Points (+0.73)

It’s very much been a season where defences have, at the margin, prevailed.

The weakest rank correlations with ladder position are associated with:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.21)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.51)

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

• Percentage of Quarters Won (+0.88)

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.81)

• Scoring Shots Conceded (+0.79)

• Opponent Scoring: Goals (+0.76)

• Opponent Scoring: Points (+0.75)

• Scoring Shots Generated (+0.74)

• Own Scoring: Goals (+0.73)

• Own Scoring: Points (+0.71)

Interestingly, perfomances in any of the four quarters does not appear on this list. Also interesting is the fact that the teams in 4th and 5th on Win Production Function Expected Wins are both out of Finals contention.

The weakest rank correlations with ladder position are associated with:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.2)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.39)

• Q4 Performances (+0.47)

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

• Percentage of Quarters Won (+0.85)

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.84)

• Scoring Shots Conceded (+0.79)

• Opponent Scoring: Goals (+0.77)

• Opponent Scoring: Points (+0.75)

The weakest rank correlations with ladder position are associated with:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.25)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.39)

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

• Percentage of Quarters Won (+0.89)

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.88)

• Opponent Scoring: Points (+0.87)

• Opponent Scoring: Goals (+0.84)

• Scoring Shots Conceded (+0.83)

• Scoring Shots Recorded (+0.74)

• Own Scoring: Points (+0.72)

• Own Scoring: Goals (+0.72)

The weakest rank correlations with ladder position are associated with:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.12)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.45)

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

• Percentage of Quarters Won (+0.83)

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.82)

• Opponent Scoring: Points (+0.81)

• Scoring Shots Conceded (+0.79)

• Opponent Scoring: Goals (+0.77)

• Scoring Shots Recorded (+0.71)

• Q4 Performances (+0.7)

• Own Scoring: Points (+0.7)

The weakest rank correlations with ladder position are associated with:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.19)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.43)

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

• Percentage of Quarters Won (+0.85)

• Opponent Scoring: Points (+0.83)

• Scoring Shots Conceded (+0.83)

• Opponent Scoring: Goals (+0.82)

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.81)

• Q4 Performances (+0.77))

The weakest rank correlations with ladder position are associated with:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.15)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.43)

There’s no doubt that defence has played a major role in tteam success this year, as evidenced by the high correlation between a number of defence-related metrics and competition ladder performance. Currently, the Top 9 teams on the competition ladder include the Top 8 teams on Scoring Shots Conceded, the Top 8 teams on Goals Conceded, and 7 of the Top 8 teams on Points Conceded.

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

• Percentage of Quarters Won (+0.88)

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.84)

• Q4 Performances (+0.81)

• Opponent Scoring: Goals (+0.78)

• Scoring Shots Conceded (+0.78)

• Opponent Scoring: Points (+0.76)

• Own Scoring: Points (+0.75)

• Own Scoring: Goals (+0.72)

The weakest rank correlations with ladder position are associated with:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.36)

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.41)

Adelaide’s statistics are particularly interesting at the moment as they are Top 5 on six different metrics, including Expected Wins, and Top 8 on four more, despite sitting 12th on the Ladder.

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

• Percentage of Quarters Won (+0.9)

• Q4 Performances (+0.87)

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.85)

• Opponent Scoring: Points (+0.79)

• Opponent Scoring: Goals (+0.76)

• Scoring Shots Conceded (+0.75)

• Own Scoring: Goals (+0.74)

• Scoring Shots Registered (+0.72)

• Own Scoring: Points (+0.71)

• Q1 Performances (+0.7)

The weakest rank correlations with ladder position are associated with:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.33)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.36)

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

• Percentage of Quarters Won (+0.95)

• The MoS Win Production Function (+0.88)

• Q4 Performances (+0.85)

• Own Scoring: Goals (+0.79)

• Scoring Shots Conceded (+0.79)

• Own Scoring: Points (+0.78)

• Q1 Performances (+0.75)

• Opponent Scoring: Points (+0.75)

• Scoring Shots Registered (+0.72)

The weakest rank correlations with ladder position are associated with:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.36)

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.40)

• Q2 Performances (+0.49)