Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table, which cpntinues to show that the teams currently in the Top 8 deserve to be there based on the metrics shown here (note that I order teams based firstly on the percentage of available competition points they have accrued and then on percentage).

As well, outside the eight, Western Bulldogs continue to have metrics that would also justify a spot for them in the Top 8. The Win Production Function now has them in 2nd.

The metrics currently most rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Opponent Goals per Game: +0.93

• Percent of Quarters Won: +0.91

• Opponent Points per Game: +0.91

• MoS Win Production Function: +0.87

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game: +0.84

• Own Points per Game: +0.8

• Own Scoring Shots per Game: +0.79

• Own Goals per Game: +0.79

• Q1 Performances: +0.78

• Q4 Performances: +0.7

Those least rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.28

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.32

• Q2 Performances: +0.49

At this point in the season, ladder position is a lot about how well teams have defended

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table, which again shows that the teams currently in the Top 8 deserve to be there based on the metrics shown here (note that I order teams based firstly on the percentage of available competition points they have accrued and then on percentage).

Outside the eight, Western Bulldogs continue to have metrics that would also justify a spot for them in the Top 8. The Win Production Function still has them in 4th.

The metrics currently most rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Percent of Quarters Won: +0.88

• MoS Win Production Function: +0.88

• Opponent Goals per Game: +0.88

• Opponent Points per Game: +0.88

• Own Goals per Game: +0.85

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game: +0.84

• Own Points per Game: +0.83

• Own Scoring Shots per Game: +0.8

• Q1 Performances: +0.74

Those least rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.21

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.42

• Q2 Performances: +0.49

It’s remarkable that three of the bottom six teams on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion currently sit in the Top 8 on my competition ladder, and that four of the Top 10 on this metric sit in ladder positions 14th and below.

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table, which again shows that the teams currently in the Top 8 deserve to be there based on the metrics shown here (note that I order teams based firstly on the percentage of available competition points they have accrued and then on percentage).

Outside the eight, Western Bulldogs still have metrics that would also justify a spot for them in the Top 8. The Win Production Function has them in 4th.

The metrics currently most rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Opponent Points per Game: +0.93

• Opponent Goals per Game: +0.92

• MoS Win Production Function: +0.90

• Percent of Quarters Won: +0.88

• Own Points per Game: +0.83

• Own Goals per Game: +0.82

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game: +0.8

• Own Scoring Shots per Game: +0.8

• Q1 Performances: +0.75

Those least rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.45

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.46

• Q2 Performances: +0.47

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table, which now shows that the teams currently in the Top 8 deserve to be there based on the metrics shown here (note that I order teams based firstly on the percentage of available competition points they have accrued and then on percentage), with the possible exception of Fremantle.

Outside the eight, Western Bulldogs have metrics that would also justify a spot for them in the Top 8. The Win Production Function has them in 3rd.

The metrics currently most rank correlated with ladder position are:

• MoS Win Production Function: +0.90

• Opponent Points per Game: +0.90

• Percent of Quarters Won: +0.89

• Opponent Goals per Game: +0.88

• Own Scoring Shots per Game: +0.83

• Own Goals per Game: +0.83

• Own Points per Game: +0.80

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game: +0.79

• Q1 Performances: +0.73

• Q3 Performances: +0.70

Those least rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.44

• Q2 Performances: +0.47

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.50

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table, which continues to show that the teams currently in the Top 8 deserve to be there based on the metrics shown here (note that I order teams based firstly on the percentage of available competition points they have accrued and then on percentage). The persistent exception remains Essendon, who now rank no better than 4th on any metric, and 12th or lower on 9 metrics, and who have a percentage of just 85. The Win Production Function now suggests that their scoring data justifies 14th position on the ladder.

Outside the eight, GWS undoubtedly has the metrics that would justify a spot in the Top 8. The Win Production Function has them in 8th.

The metrics currently most rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Opponent Points per Game: +0.89

• MoS Win Production Function: +0.88

• Percent of Quarters Won: +0.88

• Opponent Goals per Game: +0.85

• Own Scoring Shots per Game: +0.85

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game: +0.82

• Own Points per Game: +0.80

• Own Goals per Game: +0.74

Those least rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.37

• Q2 Performances: +0.46

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.47

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table, which continues to show that the teams currently in the Top 9 deserve to be there based on the metrics shown here (note that I order teams based firstly on the percentage of available competition points they have accrued and then on percentage). The persistent exception remains Essendon, who now rank no better than 6th on any metric, and 12th or lower on 11 metrics, and who have a percentage of just 81.2. The Win Production Function still suggests that their scoring data justifies 13th position on the ladder.

Having said that Essendon’s metrics don’t appear to justify a spot in the Top 8, none of the teams outside the Top 8 have stand out credentials. Best amogst them, however, is undoubtedly GWS, a shade ahead of Carlton.

The metrics currently most rank correlated with ladder position are:

• MoS Win Production Function: +0.92

• Percent of Quarters Won: +0.88

• Own Scoring Shots per Game: +0.85

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game: +0.83

• Opponent Points per Game: +0.81

• Opponent Goals per Game: +0.79

• Own Points per Game: +0.78

• Own Goals per Game: +0.77

Those least rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.32

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.38

• Q1 Performances: +0.47

• Q2 Performances: +0.48

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table, which continues to show that the teams currently in the Top 9 deserve to be there based on the metrics shown here (note that I order teams based firstly on the percentage of available competition points they have accrued and then on percentage). The only exception remains Essendon, who rank no better than 5th on any metric, and as low as 17th on Q3 Performances, and who have a percentage of just 90.8. The Win Production Function suggests that their scoring data justifies 13th position on the ladder.

The metrics currently most rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Percent of Quarters Won: +0.89

• Opponent Goals per Game: +0.85

• MoS Win Production Function: +0.84

• Opponent Points per Game: +0.84

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game: +0.81

• Own Scoring Shots per Game: +0.8

• Own Points per Game: +0.78

• Own Goals per Game: +0.74

Those least rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.33

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.37

• Q1 Performances: +0.48

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table, which continues to show that the teams currently in the Top 8 deserve to be there based on the metrics shown here (note that I order teams based firstly on the percentage of available competition points they have accrued and then on percentage). The only exception is Essendon, who rank no better than 7th on any metric, and as low as 17th on Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion.

The metrics currently most rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Percent of Quarters Won: +0.89

• Own Scoring Shots per Game: +0.86

• MoS Win Production Function: +0.85

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game: +0.83

• Own Goals per Game: +0.79

• Own Points per Game: +0.79

• Opponent Points per Game: +0.79

• Opponent Goals per Game: +0.78

• Q3 Performances: +0.74

Those least rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Q1 Performances: +0.23

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.3

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.41

• Q2 Performances: +0.47

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table, which continues to show that the teams currently in the Top 8 deserve to be there based on the metrics shown here (note that I order teams based firstly on the percentage of available competition points they have accrued and then on percentage). Only Fremantle (and maybe Carlton) also have a set of metrics deserving of a spot in the eight.

The metrics currently most rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Percent of Quarters Won: +0.87

• Own Scoring Shots per Game: +0.87

• MoS Win Production Function: +0.87

• Own Points per Game: +0.83

• Opponent Goals per Game: +0.82

• Opponent Points per Game: +0.81

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game: +0.79

• Q3 Performances: +0.78

• Own Goals per Game: +0.77

• Q4 Performances: +0.7

Those least rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.21

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.3

• Q2 Performances: +0.35

• Q1 Performances: +0.47

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table, which continues to show that the teams currently in the Top 8 - perhaps Essendon aside - mostly deserve to be there based on the metrics shown here (note that I order teams based firstly on the percentage of available competition points they have accrued and then on percentage).

The metrics currently most rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Percent of Quarters Won: +0.84

• MoS Win Production Function: +0.83

• Own Scoring Shots per Game: +0.79

• Own Points per Game: +0.76

• Q3 Performances: +0.74

• Opponent Goals per Game: +0.73

• Opponent Points per Game: +0.73

Those least rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.27

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.29

• Q2 Performances: +0.32

• Q1 Performances: +0.4

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table, which continues to show that the teams currently in the Top 8 mostly deserve to be there based on the metrics shown here (note that I order teams based firstly on the percentage of available competition points they have accrued and then on percentage).

The metrics currently most rank correlated with ladder position are:

• MoS Win Production Function: +0.92

• Own Scoring Shots per Game: +0.87

• Percent of Quarters Won: +0.84

• Own Points per Game: +0.81

• Q3 Performances: +0.79

• Opponent Points per Game: +0.77

• Opponent Goals per Game: +0.75

• Opponent Scoring Shots per Game: +0.75

• Own Goals per Game: +0.75

Those least rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Q2 Performances: +0.35

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.42

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion: +0.45

Below is the latest Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table, which shows that the teams currently in the Top 8 mostly deserve to be there based on the metrics shown here (note that I order teams based firstly on the percentage of available competition points they have accrued and then on percentage).

The metrics currently most rank correlated with ladder position are:

• MoS Win Production Function: +0.92

• Percent of Quarters Won: +0.85

• Own Scoring Shots per Game: +0.84

• Own Points per Game: +0.82

• Own Goals per Game: +0.8

• Opponent Goals per Game: +0.78

• Opponent Points per Game: +0.77

Those least rank correlated with ladder position are:

• Q1 Performances: +0.46

• Q2 Performances: +0.49

With the teams having only played between 2 and 4 games so far in the home and away season, it’s still a little early to be calling out specific team statistics in the Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table, which appears below.

Note once again that I order teams based firstly on the percentage of available competition points they have accrued and then on percentage. The only thing I would note at this point is the fairly close correspondence between the ordering of the teams that I achieve using that approach, and what we get from the MoS Win Production Function, even with such scant data.

It’s way too early to make anything meaningful from the numbers but, to get you accustomed to what you’ll see during the home and away season, here is, firstly, the Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table.

(Note that I order teams based firstly on the percentage of available competition points they have accrued and then on percentage)

It’s way too early to make anything meaningful from the numbers but, to get you accustomed to what you’ll see during the home and away season, here is, firstly, the Ranking on Dashboard Metrics table.

(Note that I order teams based firstly on the percentage of available competition points they have accrued and then on percentage)

The final Rankings on Dashboard Metrics graphic for 2024 appears below, and reveals that team rankings on the following metrics are most highly correlated with ladder position:

• Percent of Quarters Won (+0.95)

• Q3 Performances (+0.91)

• Own Points per Game (+0.89)

• MoS Win Production Function Expected Wins (+0.89)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.86)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.85)

• Q1 Performances (+0.73)

Least highly correlated are:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.12)

• 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 (+0.95)

• Q3 Performances (+0.92)

• Own Points per Game (+0.89)

• MoS Win Production Function Expected Wins (+0.87)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.85)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.85)

Least highly correlated are:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.11)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.4)

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)

• Q3 Performances (+0.89)

• MoS Win Production Function Expected Wins (+0.88) - back in the Top 3, where it should be!

• Own Points per Game (+0.86)

• Own Goals per Game (+0.83)

• Own Scoring Shots per Game (+0.82)

Least highly correlated are:

• Own Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.07)

• Opponent Scoring Shot Conversion (+0.40)

It’s very much been about generating scoring shots this season.

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.