Player Watch Patrick Lipinski

Remove this Banner Ad

Mollythedolly said:
I’m not disputing the depth of their midfield but Wallis only played 6 games this year due to injury and his midfield days ended a couple of seasons ago.

Lipinski managed 11/26 games this year, 2 of them as a sub, and only a couple through the midfield. He hasn’t even been getting/demanding the games at HF like Dunkley did. Even last year when they didn’t have Treloar and Libba missed some of the season with a knee, Jong hardly got on the park, he only played 13 and I doubt many in the midfield.

I actually think I’m being realistic. I remain hopeful 2022 will be his breakout year, but history suggests a continuation of the norm is the more likely outcome.
Click to expand...
The law of averages is just a crock of sht.

Grab two dice and start rolling them, keeping in mind the odds and if that doesn't convince you said law is a fantasy nothing will.
 
Loved his work today.

Clean hands, good running ability, goal kicker too. Getting impressive at stoppages and contest work, which he said was things he wanted to keep improving on.
Knows how to get the ball too. Always on the move.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

jonbe54 said:
The law of averages is just a crock of sht.

Grab two dice and start rolling them, keeping in mind the odds and if that doesn't convince you said law is a fantasy nothing will.
Click to expand...
Each roll is an independent event with the same probability.
 
jonbe54 said:
The law of averages is just a crock of sht.

Grab two dice and start rolling them, keeping in mind the odds and if that doesn't convince you said law is a fantasy nothing will.
Click to expand...

You’re not going to get many iterations before you get bored, but in the long run it bears out.
 
The Royal Sampler said:
You’re not going to get many iterations before you get bored, but in the long run it bears out.
Click to expand...
TRS that is applicable in a normal human lifetime how??

Averages are a construct that have a neat mathematical application but not on the human condition.

The theory is all very well and even helpful in looong term projections but that's about it.
 
jonbe54 said:
TRS that is applicable in a normal human lifetime how??

Averages are a construct that have a neat mathematical application but not on the human condition.

The theory is all very well and even helpful in looong term projections but that's about it.
Click to expand...

Obviously it is applicable in any situation in which events are sampled in large numbers. In small samples the data is noisy, but in larger populations the data more closely (as a percentage, not as a raw number) aligns with the pre-trial probabilities.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Royal Sampler said:
Obviously it is applicable in any situation in which events are sampled in large numbers. In small samples the data is noisy, but in larger populations the data more closely (as a percentage, not as a raw number) aligns with the pre-trial probabilities.
Click to expand...
So as I said in the course of a normal human lifetime not applicable.

You need an immense sample size to prove it out.

Not aiming it at you TRS but I simply don't see how averages and statistics are applicable in the course of our limited numbers.

That's ignoring the single most causative fact - the framing of both average and statistical investigations are biased by whoever frames the points of reference which again is biased by those sponsoring the investigations.
 
jonbe54 said:
So as I said in the course of a normal human lifetime not applicable.

You need an immense sample size to prove it out.

Not aiming it at you TRS but I simply don't see how averages and statistics are applicable in the course of our limited numbers.

That's ignoring the single most causative fact - the framing of both average and statistical investigations are biased by whoever frames the points of reference which again is biased by those sponsoring the investigations.
Click to expand...

You really don’t.

People think that the law of averages means that if you roll the dice enough times, you’ll end up with 1/6 of each number. Or if you toss the coin enough, whichever side came up less often initially will “catch up”. That’s not how it works.

The law of averages simply means that short term variance can be expected to be diluted in a larger sample.

Say you toss a coin 100 times and get 54 H, 46 T. So 54% heads.

Now before you do the next 100 tosses, you would naturally expect close to 50/50. Let’s say it comes out 52 H, 48 T.

So now out of 200 tosses we have 106 H, 94 T. The run of heads has continued and yet the percentage has actually dropped. It’s now 53% H instead of 54%.

Our next set of 100 sees tails come up a few more times to break even, 50 H to 50 T. The percentage of heads drops again to 52%, despite not being outscored by tails in any of our sets of 100.

So the extra heads never get “erased”, and tails never “catches up” in raw numbers, and yet over time the distribution as a percentage comes closer to the expectation.

It actually bears out with quite small populations, but people just misunderstand what the “law” actually means.
 
The Royal Sampler said:
You really don’t.

People think that the law of averages means that if you roll the dice enough times, you’ll end up with 1/6 of each number. Or if you toss the coin enough, whichever side came up less often initially will “catch up”. That’s not how it works.

The law of averages simply means that short term variance can be expected to be diluted in a larger sample.

Say you toss a coin 100 times and get 54 H, 46 T. So 54% heads.

Now before you do the next 100 tosses, you would naturally expect close to 50/50. Let’s say it comes out 52 H, 48 T.

So now out of 200 tosses we have 106 H, 94 T. The run of heads has continued and yet the percentage has actually dropped. It’s now 53% H instead of 54%.

Our next set of 100 sees tails come up a few more times to break even, 50 H to 50 T. The percentage of heads drops again to 52%, despite not being outscored by tails in any of our sets of 100.

So the extra heads never get “erased”, and tails never “catches up” in raw numbers, and yet over time the distribution as a percentage comes closer to the expectation.

It actually bears out with quite small populations, but people just misunderstand what the “law” actually means.
Click to expand...
All very interesting TRS but again applying it to our situation in these pages is not possible.

In no way am I denying the 'averaging' effect of enough raw data, but my point has always been too many of us apply 'averages' to a player or a position etc.

Nowhere near enough data to make any meaningful investigation.
 
jonbe54 said:
All very interesting TRS but again applying it to our situation in these pages is not possible.

In no way am I denying the 'averaging' effect of enough raw data, but my point has always been too many of us apply 'averages' to a player or a position etc.

Nowhere near enough data to make any meaningful investigation.
Click to expand...

Well you’ve gone from “not in the course of a human lifetime” to “not in our situation in these pages”. I’m not keen on shooting at moving goalposts so I’ll leave you to it.
 
jonbe54 said:
Roll two dice 100 times and see if the numbers average out - I bet they don't.
Click to expand...

They do. As along time old school gamer.

Dice wil always average out in the long run. I;'m always telling young gamers upset with their dice rolls this,

though I do add, not necessarily in your lifetime.
 
gouki88 said:
He was before they got Treloar. He's a good player, but he's not on the same level as Bontempelli, Macrae, Libba, Treloar or Dunkley. He can be a good player without being able to get into that midfield.
Click to expand...

The bulldogs play about 10 people rotating through their midfield, not just their best 5…
 
Vicky Park said:
Can someone remind me again why we think Lipinski is a good get? I'm not getting the vibe. He left the Dogs...because the midfield was hard to break into?

Sorry Jen2310, I know you're keen on him.

I'm more excited about our own Macrae and desperate to see how McInnes goes in our evolving 2022 midfield. And then of course there's ND. But otherwise I'm feeling a bit meh about Lippa.
Click to expand...

I think getting Lipinski was really smart work.

He has been unlucky to get kept out of his preferred role by a very strong Bulldogs midfield. He has shown that when he plays in midfield his best is quality.

He has endurance, can go inside and out, is good in traffic has a quick first couple of steps and is an elite kick. I expect him to excel with the opportunity and improve the connection with our forwards. He also is a goal scorer. Add to that he is in the right age bracket with a good body of experience behind him.

For the price he is a bargain and better than we could realistically expect to get at the pick we used to trade him. I think his major weakness is two way running and I expect McRae who has a strong track record in development to iron this out.
 
Mukesh said:
What little I've seen of him puts me in mind of a left footed, better looking/groomed WHE... remember I did say little...
Click to expand...
I appreciate the effort, but nothing like WHE. Probably the only relevance to WHE is his ability to kick goals. Patty has better endurance, kicking skills and dispoals. Cleaner at the contest/stoppages, which I'm not sure was something WHE was used for.
WHE probably better in the air, but patty has take a good mark.
 
Jen2310 said:
I appreciate the effort, but nothing like WHE. Probably the only relevance to WHE is his ability to kick goals. Patty has better endurance, kicking skills and dispoals. Cleaner at the contest/stoppages, which I'm not sure was something WHE was used for.
WHE probably better in the air, but patty has take a good mark.
Click to expand...

Also one is a Wingman and other is Midfielder
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top