Below is the final Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which suggests that the eight finalists includes:

• The Top 7 teams on Own Scoring Shots (GWS the exception)

• Seven of the Top 8 teams on Opponent Scoring Shots (GWS the exception)

• Six of the Top 8 teams on Own Scoring Shot Conversion (Melbourne and Western Bulldogs the exceptions)

• Six of the Top 8 teams on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (Melbourne and Essendon the exceptions)

• The Top 8 teams on Own Goals and Points

• Seven of the Top 8 teams on Opponent Goals and Points (Essendon the exception twice)

• Six of the Top 8 teams on Q1 Performances (Port Adelaide and Geelong the exceptions)

• Six of the Top 8 teams on Q2 Performances (Melbourne and GWS the exceptions)

• Six of the Top 8 teams on Q3 Performances (Western Bulldogs and Essendon the exceptions)

• Seven of the Top 8 teams on Q4 Performances (GWS the exception)

• All of the Top 8 teams on Quarters Won

• All of the Top 8 teams on the MoS Win Production Function

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which suggests that, according to the MoS Win Production Function, all of the Top 8 teams deserve to be Top 8, but in a different order. (And, yikes, that thing is 10 years old now. I should be looking for primary schools for it).

Amongst that Top 8:

• Melbourne stand out for their relatively poor Own and Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion

• Geelong and Port Adelaide stand out for their relatively poor Q1 Performances

• Western Bulldogs stand out for their relatively poor Own Scoring Shot Conversion and Q3 Performances

• GWS stand out for their relatively poor Own and Opponent Scoring Shot Generation, and for their Q2 and Q4 Performances

• Essendon stand out for their relatively poor Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, and for Goals and Points Conceded

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which shows, as it has done to about the same extent across the entire season, that ladder position is:

Highly related to:

• Percent of Quarters Won

• Expected Wins according to the MoS Win Production Function

• Scoring Shots, Goals, and Points Generated

• Scoring Shots, Goals, and Points Conceded

• Q2 and Q4 Perfomances

Moderately related to:

• Q1 and Q3 Performances

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion

Weakly related to:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which shows that, this year at least, mediocrity on some measures at least doesn’t preclude a team from greatness, as evidenced by the fact that:

• Western Bulldogs, 1st on the Competition Ladder, are 11th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion and Q3 Performances

• Geelong, 2nd on the Competition Ladder, are 7th on Own Scoring Shots and Points, and 8th on Q1 Performances

• Melbourne, 3rd on the Competition Ladder, are 15th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, 14th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, and 9th on Q1 and Q2 Performances

• Port Adelaide, 4th on the Competition Ladder, are 9th on Own Scoring Shot Production, and 11th on Q1 Performances

• West Coast, 7th on the Competition Ladder, are 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 16th on a range of metrics

• Fremantle, 8th on the Competition Ladder, are 11th, 13th, 16th, 17th, and 18th on a range of metrics

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which shows that the ordering of teams on the competition ladder is very consistent with their ordering based on the MoS Win Production Function.

The teams whose win percentages are most different from what would be expected according to that Function are:

• Collingwood: 1.9 wins fewer than expected

• Essendon: 1.6 wins fewer

• Hawthorn and Brisbane Lions: 0.9 wins fewer

• Melbourne: 1.6 wins more

• St Kilda: 1.3 wins more

• West Coast: 1.0 wins more

• Fremantle 0.9 wins more

In terms of ladder position based on Expected WIns, the largest discrepancies are:

• Collingwood: 3 places lower than expected

• Brisbane Lions, Carlton, and Essendon: 2 places lower

• Melbourne: 3 places higher

• GWS and St Kilda: 2 places higher

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which shows that, on average, the teams doing best have:

• Won more quarters

• Been expected to do well based on the MoS Win Production Function

• Registered more Scoring Shots

• Registered more points and goals

• Conceded fewer goals and points

• Performed better in Q2s

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which continues to show some relatively small rank correlations between ladder position and what would seem like important metrics, in particular:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.35

• Q4 Performances: +0.55

• Q1 Performances: +0.60

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.63

• Q3 Performances: +0.64

On average, the teams doing best have:

• Won more quarters (not entirely surprising)

• Conceded fewer goals and points

• Won more Q2s

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which is now showing that, with a few notable exceptions, teams ranked higher on the various metrics tend also to be sitting higher on the competition ladder.

West Coast and GWS are the most conspicuous teams in terms of sitting higher on the ladder than their dashboard metrics might suggest, and Essendon still surprises by virtue of sitting 12th on the ladder despite being in the Top 8 on a number of key metrics, including Expected Wins according to the MoS Win Production Function.

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which shows, amongst other things, that:

• The teams that are 4th, 5th and 6th on Scoring Shot generation are all outside the Top 8 on the ladder

• The teams that are 3rd, 4th and 5th on Scoring Shot Conversion are all outside the Top 8 on the ladder (and the team that’s 18th is currently 9th on the ladder)

• The team that is 3rd on Points Scored is in 11th spot on the ladder

• The team with the second-worst Q4 record currently sits in 7th spot on the ladder

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which still shows that one of the most reliable scoring-based metrics for determining a team’s ladder position is the MoS Win Production Function, which now, after all teams have played 13 games, suggests that:

• Melbourne have won 1.7 games more than expected

• St Kilda have won 1.4 games more than expected

• Fremantle have won 0.8 games more than expected

• Collingwood have won 1.1 games fewer than expected

• Carlton have won 1.0 games fewer than expected

• Essendon have won 0.9 games fewer than expected

• Gold Coast have won 0.8 games fewer than expected

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which is ordered based firstly on each team’s competition points per game played, and then based on percentage:

The most reliable metrics for determining a team’s ladder position ordered in this way are now Percent of Quarters Won, the MoS Win Production Function, and then Q2 Performances (with a slew of other metrics not far behind).

Looking at that MoS Win Production Function suggests that:

• Melbourne have won 1.7 games more than expected

• St Kilda have won 1.4 games more than expected

• Fremantle have won 0.8 games more than expected

• Essendon have won 1.2 games fewer than expected

• Collingwood have won 1.1 games fewer than expected

• Carlton have won 1.0 games fewer than expected

• Gold Coast have won 0.9 games fewer than expected

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which is ordered based firstly on each team’s competition points per game played, and then based on percentage:

The most reliable metrics for determining a team’s ladder position ordered in this way are the MoS Win Production Function, Quarters Won, and then Goals and Points Conceded.

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which now shows that, amongst the teams in the Top 8 on the ladder, we have:

• The team ranked 12th on Scoring Shot Concession (Sydney)

• The team ranked 15th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (Melbourne)

• The team ranked 13th on Q3 Performances (Western Bulldogs)

• The team ranked 18th on Q4 Performances (West Coast)

• The team ranked 14th on Q2 Performances and 12th on Q3 Performances (Richmond)

Also, amongst teams outside the Top 8 we have:

• The team ranked 4th on Scoring Shot Production, 2nd on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, 2nd on Own Scoring, and 3rd on Opponent Scoring (Essendon)

• The team ranked 4th on Q1 Performances (GWS)

• The team ranked equal 5th on Scoring Shot Production, and 2nd on Q3 Performances (Fremantle)

• The team ranked equal 5th on Scoring Shot Production (Carlton)

• The team ranked equal 4th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, and 6th on Q3 Performances (Gold Coast)

• The team ranked 5th on Opponent Scoring Shot Production, and 3rd on Q1 Performances (Collingwood)

• The team ranked 6th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion (Hawthorn)

The most reliable metrics for determining a team’s ladder position are the MoS Win Production Function, Quarters Won, Points Scored, and Goals and Points Conceded.

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which now shows that the highest rank correlations with competition ladder position belong to:

• MoS Win Production Function (+0.96)

• % of Quarters Won (+0.92)

• Goals Conceded per Game (+0.85)

• Points Conceded per Game (+0.80)

• Points Scored per Game (+0.80)

• Goals Generated per Game (+0.80)

• Scoring Shots Generated per Game (+0.79)

• Scoring Shots Conceded per Game (+0.76)

• Q2 Performances (+0.73)

• Q4 Performances (+0.70)

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which shows that the highest rank correlations with competition ladder position belong to:

• MoS Win Production Function (+0.96)

• % of Quarters Won (+0.91)

• Goals Conceded per Game (+0.90)

• Points Conceded per Game (+0.90)

• Scoring Shots Conceded per Game (+0.82)

• Points Scored per Game (+0.81)

• Scoring Shots Generated per Game (+0.80)

• Goals Generated per Game (+0.77)

• Q2 Performances (+0.77)

• Q4 Performances (+0.75)

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which still shows mostly the same relationships between competition ladder position and ranking on ket metrics as it did last week.

Melbourne, amazingly, sit 9th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, 13th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, 13th on Q1 performances, and 8th on Q3 performances, while three of the top 5 teams on Own Scoring Shot Conversion lie 15th through 17th on the competition ladder.

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which still shows some surprisingly low correlations between the teams’ ranking on key dashboard metrics and their placement on the competition ladder.

The most highly correlated metrics with competition ladder ordering are:

• MoS Win Production Function Expected Wins (+0.96)

• % of Quarters Win (+0.93)

• Goals Conceded Per Game (+0.88)

• Points Conceded Per Game (+0.86)

• Q2 Performances (+0.82)

The least highly correlated metrics with competition ladder ordering are:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (-0.02)

• Q4 Performances (+0.30)

• Q1 Performances (+0.32)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.50)

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which shows mostly the same relationships between overall rankings on the metrics and ordering on the competition ladder.

On a team-by-team analysis, it’s interesting to note that:

• Western Bulldogs sit first on the ladder despite being only 11th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, and 12th on Q3 performances

• Melbourne sit second on the ladder despite being 15th on both Own and Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion

• Geelong sit fourth on the ladder despite being 10th on Own Scoring Shot Generation, 9th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, 15th on Q1 performance, and 11th on Q4 performances

• Sydney sit fifth on the ladder despite being 15th on Opponent Scoring Shot Generation, and 15th on Q4 performances

• Hawthorn sit 15th on the ladder despite being 4th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, and 6th on Q4 performances

• Collingwood sit 17th on the ladder despite being 5th on Opponent Scoring Shot Generation, 3rd on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, 5th on Q1 performances, and 5th on Q4 performances

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which still shows some sizeable differences in the rankings of particular teams for particular metrics, when compared with their positions on the competition ladder.

St Kilda are a particularly interesting case in that they, despite sitting 13th on the ladder, are ranked 15th or lower on 10 of the metrics, and last or second-last on seven.

Overall, it’s still the case that Scoring Shot Generation is proving far more important than Scoring Shot Conversion, and Quarters 1 and 2 far more important than Quarters 3 and 4.

Below is the Ranking on Dashboard Metrics data, which this week reveals that Scoring Shot Conversion - a team’s own and its opponents’ - remains relatively unimportant. Six of the teams currently in the Top 8 on the competition ladder are ranked 10th or lower on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, and six of the teams currently in the Bottom 8 on the competition ladder are ranked 9th or higher on Own Scoring Shot Conversion. That is, truly, quite odd.