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 (+0.94)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.9)

• MoS Win Production Function Expected Wins (+0.89)

• Own Points per Game (+0.88)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.88)

• Q3 Performances (+0.87)

• Q1 Performances (+0.75)

Least highly correlated are:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.08)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.41)

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 (+0.92)

• Own Points per Game (+0.92)

• MoS Win Production Function Expected Wins (+0.9)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.9)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.89)

• Q3 Performances (+0.79)

• Q1 Performances (+0.74)

Least highly correlated are:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.17)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.46)

• Q4 Performances (+0.49)

Death, taxes, and the ultimately highly predictive nature of the MoS Win Production Function.

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 (+0.86)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.86)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.85)

• Own Points per Game (+0.84)

• MoS Win Production Function Expected Wins (+0.84)

• Q1 Performances (+0.73)

• Q3 Performances (+0.7)

Least highly correlated are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.3)

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.31)

• Opponent Points per Game (+0.4)

• Q2 Performances (+0.43)

• Opponent Goals per Game (+0.43)

• Q4 Performances (+0.44)

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game (+0.5)

There remains quite a bit of orange amongst teams in the Top 8 on the ladder, and quite a bit of green amongst teams outside the Top 8 (in particular the Western Bulldogs).

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 (+0.86)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.86)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.85)

• Own Points per Game (+0.84)

• MoS Win Production Function Expected Wins (+0.84)

• Q1 Performances (+0.73)

• Q3 Performances (+0.7)

Least highly correlated are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.3)

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.31)

• Opponent Points per Game (+0.4)

• Q2 Performances (+0.43)

• Opponent Goals per Game (+0.43)

• Q4 Performances (+0.44)

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game (+0.5)

There remains quite a bit of orange amongst teams in the Top 8 on the ladder, and quite a bit of green amongst teams outside the Top 8 (in particular the Western Bulldogs).

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:

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.85)

• Percent of Quarters Won (+0.8)

• Own Points per Game (+0.78)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.76)

• MoS Win Production Function Expected Wins (+0.75)

• Q1 Performances (+0.73)

• Q3 Performances (+0.6)

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game (+0.53)

Least highly correlated are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.2)

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.22)

• Q2 Performances (+0.37)

• Opponent Goals per Game (+0.39)

• Opponent Points per Game (+0.4)

• Q4 Performances (+0.46)

The varying correlational results for performances in the different quarters is interesting if hard to provide a sensible rationale for: Q1 and Q3 performances have been far more important than Q2 and Q4 performances, it seems.

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:

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.84)

• Own Points per Game (+0.81)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.8)

• Percent of Quarters Won (+0.78)

• MoS Win Production Function Expected Wins (+0.76)

Least highly correlated are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.23)

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.27)

• Opponent Goals per Game (+0.28)

• Opponent Points per Game (+0.33)

• Q2 Performances (+0.4)

The Conceded Scoring per Game section of the dashboard is especially notable in that, for both metrics, teams ranked in the bottom 8 represent the majority of teams in the Top 8 on the competition ladder.

Although it’s not entirely true to say that the sole criterion for success this season has been offensive ability, offence has clearly been more important than defence.

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 (which, thankfully, can now be created without adjustment):

• Own Points per Game (+0.78)

• Percent of Quarters Won (+0.7)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.75)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.72)

Least highly correlated are:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.22)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.26)

• Opponent Points per Game (+0.37)

• Q2 Performances (+0.38)

• Opponent Goals per Game (+0.4)

• Q4 Performances (+0.48)

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game (+0.49)

The only metrics for which the Top 8 teams on the competition ladder are in the Top for the metric are Q3 Performances, and Percent of Quarters Won.

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 (which, once again is determined firstly by percentage of possible competition points accumulated, and then by percentage):

• Percent of Quarters Won (+0.83)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.76)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.75)

• Own Points per Game (+0.75)

• Q3 Performances (+0.73)

Least highly correlated are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.14)

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.29)

• Opponent Points per Game (+0.32)

• Opponent Goals per Game (+0.36)

• Q2 Performances (+0.37)

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game (+0.42)

• Q4 Performances (+0.42)

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 (which, once again is determined firstly by percentage of possible competition points accumulated, and then by percentage):

• Q3 Performances (+0.81)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.79)

• Percent of Quarters Won (+0.79)

• Own Points per Game (+0.77)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.74)

Least highly correlated are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.06)

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.19)

• Opponent Goals per Game (+0.29)

• Opponent Points per Game (+0.32)

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game (+0.39)

• Q2 Performances (+0.39)

• Q1 Performances (+0.47)

• Q4 Performances (+0.48)

The fact that only five metrics have correlations above +0.7 and eight have correlations below +0.5 is very revealing about just how different this season is, with teams ranked as low as 17th on some metrics sitting comfortably in the Top 8 on the ladder, and teams in the top 5 on some metrics sitting uncomfortably in the bottom half.

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 (which, once again is determined firstly by percentage of possible competition points accumulated, and then by percentage):

• Percent of Quarters Won (+0.85)

• Own Points per Game (+0.81)

• Q3 Performances (+0.81)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.81)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.74)

Least highly correlated are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.17)

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.27)

• Opponent Points per Game (+0.34)

• Opponent Goals per Game (+0.35)

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game (+0.38)

• Q2 Performances (+0.39)

• Q4 Performances (+0.48)

Long-time readers of this Team Dashboard blog will understand just how unusual some of those correlations are, a fact that can possibly be partly explained by the unprecedented similarity in the abilities of many of the teams and the resultant somewhat more random-like nature of the team ladder ordering.

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).