The latest table of Rankings on Dashboard Metrics appears below.

Based on the MoS Win Production Function, the current Top 8 on the ladder are those with the highest Expected Wins, albeit in a different order. The largest differences between Actual and Expected Wins now belong to:

• St Kilda (+1.8 wins, Actual less Expected)

• Richmond (+1.5 wins)

• Brisbane Lions (+1.3 wins)

• West Coast (+1.1 wins)

• Sydney (-1.9 wins)

• GWS (-1.7 wins)

• North Melbourne (-1.3 wins)

• Adelaide and Carlton (-1.1 wins)

The latest table of Rankings on Dashboard Metrics appears below.

Based on rank correlation the metrics most highly correlated with the current competition ladder ordering are the orderings based on:

• the MoS Win Production Function (+0.93)

• Points Scored (+0.93)

• Goals Scored (+0.92)

• % of Quarters Won (+0.87)

• Points Conceded (+0.82)

Those metrics least correlated are:

• Q2 performances (+0.34)

• Opponents’ Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.43)

• Q3 performances (+0.57)

• Q4 performances (+0.61)

• Q1 performances (+0.65)

The relatively low correlations between ladder positions and performances in individual quarters I think reflects the fact that no team - Geelong aside - has been able to dominate in every quarter. All of the teams in positions 2 through 8 on the competition ladder are ranked 9th or lower for at least one quarter, most of them for two quarters.

The latest table of Rankings on Dashboard Metrics appears below.

Currently, the rank correlation between the teams’ ordering based on the MoS Win Production Function and that based on the competition ladder stands at a remarkable +0.96, suggesting that teams are (almost) ordered the same way based on both metrics.

That said, according to the MoS Win Production Function:

• St Kilda have won 1.7 games more than their scoring metrics would imply

• West Coast have won 1.3 games more than their scoring metrics would imply

• Richmond have won 1.2 games more than their scoring metrics would imply

• Brisbane Lions have won 1.0 games more than their scoring metrics would imply

• Melbourne have won 0.8 games more than their scoring metrics would imply

• Carlton have won 1.8 games fewer than their scoring metrics would imply

• GWS have won 1.4 games fewer than their scoring metrics would imply

• Hawthorn have won 1.2 games fewer than their scoring metrics would imply

• Sydney have won 1.0 games fewer than their scoring metrics would imply

The latest table of Rankings on Dashboard Metrics appears below.

Seven of the teams currently in the Top 8 spots on the competition ladder are 10th or worse on at least one Dashboard Metric.

• Collingwood are 14th on Q2 and Q3 performances

• West Coast are 12th on Scoring Shots Conceded, 13th on Q2 performances, and 12th on Q3 performances

• GWS are 13th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion

• Brisbane Lions are 10th on Scoring Shots Conceded, 13th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, 11th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, 11th on Goals Conceded, 10th on Points Conceded, and 10th on Q1 performances

• Adelaide are 10th on Own Scoring Shot Conversion, and 12th on Q1 performances

• Richmond are 15th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion, 10th on Points Scored, 12th on Goals Conceded, 12th on Points Conceded, 11th on Q3 performances, 14th on Q4 performances, and 13th on Expected Wins

• Fremantle are 12th on Own Scoring Shots, 12th on Goals Scored, 12th on Points Scored, and 15th on Q2 performances

The latest table of Rankings on Dashboard Metrics appears below.

One interesting feature it reveals is that the teams in the Top 8 on the competition ladder are now also the Top 8 teams as measured by Expected Wins according to the MoS Win Production Function, albeit in a different order.

The latest table of Rankings on Dashboard Metrics appears below. Note that the ladder ordering is, again, determined by competition points earned per game played, which sees a slightly differently ordering to the standard competition ladder.

Of all the metrics on the Dashboard, it remains the case that the Expected Wins according to the MoS Win Production Function provides a ranking closest to that of the ladder as we determine it.

The latest table of Rankings on Dashboard Metrics appears below. Note that the ladder ordering is determined on the basis of competition points earned per game played, which sees the Roos and Saints differently ordered in comparison to the standard competition ladder.

It continues to be the case that Geelong is the only team with consistently high rankings on all metrics, while other teams in the Top 8 on the ladder find themselves ranked as low as 15th on some metrics. We also have teams in the bottom seven places on the ladder ranked as high as 3rd on some metrics.

The latest table of Rankings on Dashboard Metrics appears below and, broadly speaking, suggests that the teams’ ladder positions are more highly correlated with :

• scoring points (+0.75 correlation) than with conceding them (+0.74)

• a team’s converting its own Scoring Shots (+0.64) than with the rate at which its opponents have converted their Scoring Shots (+0.25)

• the Goals a team scores (+0.90) than with the Goals it concedes (+0.73)

• the Points a team scores (+0.88) than with the Points it concedes (+0.78)

• Q4 performances (+0.75) than with Q3 (+0.57), Q1 (+0.54), or Q2 (+0.38) performances

• a team’s Expected Wins according to the MoS Win Production Function than with any other of the metrics on the Dashboard

The latest table of Rankings on Dashboard Metrics appears below and we can still see a number of teams whose rankings on particular metrics are quite different from their ladder positions, including:

• Collingwood, GWS and Richmond on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion

• Collingwood and West Coast on Q2s and Q3s, Richmond on Q4s, Adelaide on Q1s and Q4s, and Gold Coast on Q1s

• Brisbane Lions on Opponent Scoring Shots, Goals and Points, and on Own Scoring Shot conversion

• Sydney on Own and Opponent Scoring Shot conversion

• North Melbourne and Western Bulldogs on Own Goals and Points scored

Of all the Dashboard Metrics we track, those currently most correlated with team success (based on the rank correlation between team ordering on the metric and team ordering on the competition ladder) are:

• the MoS Win Production Function (correlation +0.93)

• Goals Scored per game (+0.90)

• Points Scored per game (+0.87)

• Percent of Quarters Won (+0.79)

• Scoring Shots per Game (+0.78)

Looking across team rankings on the various Dashboard metrics would suggest that the Lions, Tigers and Eagles are the teams whose current elevated ladder positions are most at odds with those metrics.

According to the MoS Win Production Function, the top 7 teams on the competition ladder currently are also in the top 7 in terms of Expected Wins, and the bottom 5 teams on the competition ladder currently are also in the bottom for Expected Wins. The rank correlation between the teams’ ordering on the ladder and ordering by Expected Wins is now +0.90.

It’s interesting this season how seemingly unimportant scoring shot conversion has been: it’s all been about generating and preventing scoring shots, as the Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table below reveals.

Although the ladder now has two teams on 4 wins, nine on 3 wins, three on 2 wins, and one on a single win, the ordering provided by percentage sees the competition in much better agreement with MoS’ Expected Wins column this week. The only team ranked more than 4 places differently on Expected Wins compared to ladder position is Gold Coast, who are 11th on the ladder but 16th on Expected Wins.

On the basis of Team Dashboard metrics, including expected wins according the MoS Win Production Function, St Kilda and Gold Coast find themselves much higher on the competition ladder than they might reasonably expect.

The latest Team Dashboard appears below but, before that, again this week I’m going to present a table of team rankings based on the various Dashboard Metrics.

The latest Team Dashboard appears below but, before that, I’m going to present a table that looks at the ranking of each team across all of the metrics on that main Team Dashboard.

For readers new to MoS, let me introduce the Team Dashboard. Updated at the end of every round, the Dashboard has three main sections.

The latest versions of the Team Dashboard and the Team Dashboard Metrics Rankings appear below.

The latest versions of the Team Dashboard and the Team Dashboard Metrics Rankings appear below.