Welcome to Tigers: Jason Castagna | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Welcome to Tigers: Jason Castagna

Perception? Mate, have a look at the blooper video (posted last week) for Castagna’s game last week.
Its not perception, it’s reality. He’s gone backwards for the past 3 years. It’s not just his (abysmal) shots on goal, it’s missing targets by hand and foot. Lack of forward pressure etc.
His flaws are many and have been well documented.
We can’t carry zero skilled players, the game has changed.

Am I biased? Yes I am, and many who were previously fanboys are now seeing it. Time to upgrade for a player who is more skilled and can actually impact on the scoreboard. I’d rather a player who can kick 2 or 3 goals when the opportunity presents rather than a player who keeps breaking down play and misses goals so horribly.
2 goal player compared to a player who runs hard with little skill. I know who I want. Scoreboard pressure rather than late to the ball who runs hard

It's a zero sum game.

Upgrading in one area means you have less to invest in another area.

If you value the idea of investing in skilful, small forwards who can kick 44-66 goals per year, then which part of the team do you propose they downgrade to compensate for that investment?
 
The key phrase in your post is "to my naked eye".

The basic concept of 'moneyball' is exploiting the whole "to my naked eye" approach that your competitors still use.
Yeah that’s why I said we need George’s expected score metric vs actual score. The g/(g+b) would certainly have some correlation with that and it’s just my judgement that his (actual score) / (expected score) would be near the bottom of the afl - but I can’t find that data. He creates excellent quality shots at goal regularly (elite in this regard IMO) and regularly misses too many.
 
It's a zero sum game.

Upgrading in one area means you have less to invest in another area.

If you value the idea of investing in skilful, small forwards who can kick 44-66 goals per year, then which part of the team do you propose they downgrade to compensate for that investment?
Well please guess how much Castagna gets each year, in your opinion. I’d certainly be interested in what figure it is. I certainly don’t know.

I’d like to know what Aarts earns as well ( I can only surmise it would be fairly cheapish contract). Add them together to upgrade, what have we lost?
I wouldn’t be against going into a season with a spare list spot or 2. Evaluate a need if we have injuries using the PSSD or MYD
Average wage is approx $390k per year.


When did I say a small forward needs to kick 44-60 goals per year?
I stated I preferred “a player who kicks 2-3 goals when the opportunity presented itself” a player who has the basic skills of a professional footballer.

Its not a matter of downgrading one area for another. That’s List Management 101. If you have a plethora of small forwards (Stengel, Castagna, Butler, Higgins at a pinch Stack, Baker, etc) you sometimes have to make the call to let someone go to bolster where you have a deficiency. Or sometimes the players themselves will look for more opportunities

Its balancing the list. You don’t carry 8 hbfers when you desperately need mids. Or 6 specialist wingmen when you need a key forward.
Or 5 ruckmen etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well please guess how much Castagna gets each year, in your opinion. I’d certainly be interested in what figure it is. I certainly don’t know.

I’d like to know what Aarts earns as well ( I can only surmise it would be fairly cheapish contract). Add them together to upgrade, what have we lost?
I wouldn’t be against going into a season with a spare list spot or 2. Evaluate a need if we have injuries using the PSSD or MYD
Average wage is approx $390k per year.


When did I say a small forward needs to kick 44-60 goals per year?
I stated I preferred “a player who kicks 2-3 goals when the opportunity presented itself” a player who has the basic skills of a professional footballer.

Its not a matter of downgrading one area for another. That’s List Management 101. If you have a plethora of small forwards (Stengel, Castagna, Butler, Higgins at a pinch Stack, Baker, etc) you sometimes have to make the call to let someone go to bolster where you have a deficiency. Or sometimes the players themselves will look for more opportunities

Its balancing the list. You don’t carry 8 hbfers when you desperately need mids. Or 6 specialist wingmen when you need a key forward.
Or 5 ruckmen etc.

Rather than accepting the limitations of equalisation measures, the way I read your argument is that you've resorted to "well, let's just package up our worst players and pool the resources together for 1 good player so we can afford an upgrade"

Am I misreading the argument?

And even if I entertained that approach as a genuine approach, we could just apply that same argument to any other player - say a star midfielder - instead of wasting such a strategy on upgrading a small forward. That would then put us back to my original argument:

In a zero sum game, you need to consciously choose which areas you invest in the least. Most people find ways to avoid doing that, but philosophically that's the wrong because you'd be setting yourself up to run out of resources before you intend to... without writing several paragraphs to better explain exactly what I mean, I think the concept is objectively true, I'm just not sure how to describe it.

Regarding your next point, I don't need to know exactly how much our cheapest players are getting to know that they're in the category of low priority investment.

Are you disputing the idea that George absorbs a smaller portion of the equalisation pie than most of our players? I think that's a reasonable assumption to make.

A player who kicks 2-3 goals a game = a player who kicks 44-66 goals per season. That's what it is.

Hence, my interpretation is that you're saying let's package up George and Aarts, and pool that money to get 1 player who can kick 44-66 goals per season.

My argument is the club is very smart with our conscious allocation of limited resources, and that it's human nature to do the opposite and chase 'better talent' without really acknowledging the consequences that pursuit has on limited resources. It's all in context of value for the price. Value can be exploited if you know things that your competition doesn't know or doesn't have the discipline to act upon.

So, do you accept the reality that upgrading a forward pocket means decreasing an investment elsewhere by an equal amount, and if not, why? If so, which area do you consciously disadvantage so we can upgrade our small forward stocks?

You've raised the idea to offset the cost by using the PSD and MSD. However, we already utilise the PSD and MSD. Therefore, any stance to upgrade our forward pocket without consciously choosing where to decrease investment is a short-sighted argument to pull additional resources out of nowhere to get better talent, and deal with the guaranteed repercussions later. Is that your suggest approach?

Another alternative would be to replace what we have with similarly-priced alternatives from the rookie draft.

When we know our current cheap option is good enough to contribute to multiple premierships, then I just don't see a large incentive to churn through lottery tickets hoping to find a better one quickly.



Castagna not impressive. Would like to see 2022 data.

View attachment 16016

Thanks for finding these data.

I'm not sure how to accurately apply that -12% figure to the stats I'm currently aware of, but I think we can still think about the general concept.

Being intentionally vague about the specific numbers, let's now say George is about -12% for expected shot difficulty and -6% for overall goal kicking accuracy compared to the competition average, and overall, he costs us 1 goal for every 10 shots compared to average.

So, we could be getting 1 extra goal in every 10th shot he takes i we invest more into talent in this position on the ground.

Does that sound fair?

I would then say the most important context here is for whatever numbers these are to make sense after we adjust for where his output lies on a distribution that takes into account salary and upfront pick cost of every player in the competition.

That value rating is what it's all about. Everything else is relative to that number on a distribution adjusted for equalisation measures.

We can't analyse the actual numbers in here unfortunately, but let's say George comes at around half the investment cost overall compared to average, then it'd be a win if the things he does are more valuable and harder to observe than the "-10%" weakness that everyone can clearly notice, including any 5yo kid.

The good is obscure
The bad is obvious

...and I'd argue that's a good thing after value for money enters the equation.

I believe list management success largely hinges upon us trying to avoid the many, many biases that we all have when faced with difficult decisions surrounding limited resources.

Most suggestions for improving upon players like George ultimately fall into the category of spending more money for more talent, which isn't a good approach.

Assuming he's still a relatively cheap option, it's hard to replace him even if someone slightly better becomes available.

I think our top priority is to find Cotchin and Edwards replacements in the draft, and to keep Bolton, Baker, Short, Balta, etc.

Small forward is a good transitory position for future midfielders IMO.

Maurice Rioli is the perfect type for this position, as he offers potentially a handful of competent years as a small forward before going on to fulfil a role in the middle.

Daniel Rioli wasn't a career small forward

George is one of the few career small forwards in this regard, but I wouldn't replace him with a better version of is type... I'd keep him while churning through Cotchin and Edwards replacements (top priority) and then play those replacements as a small forward if the opportunity arises. I don't think it matters if we gain marginal upgrades on fringe role players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Anyone see the VFL? Did he play mid? Got heap of the ball. Not sure you want Castagna getting it 20-odd times though
Yeah, I did.

He was Castagna, but at VFL level.

He seemed to play as a defensive side mid? Half back at times.

He is an AFL level athlete. He looks tough, and quick in the magoos. Cause he is.

But he still sidesteps into traffic, turns it over, and picks the wrong option.

He's not going to suddenly become a different footballer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Hey @123cups thanks for your very thoughtful reply.
I agree with most of what you wrote. However, there is no reason why we can’t look to replace poor performers just because they’re a cheap option.
I mentioned Castagna and Aarts as two who play as small forwards. I think most would agree that they have been sub par this season (at least).
Regardless of what position a player plays, if their performance is below par for an extended period of time, it’s the responsibility of the List Manager to look to upgrade that player. Thats the bread and butter of a good List Manager. You don’t keep a player who is deficient just because he’s a “cheap option”
I understand your point, it’s a balancing act spreading the cash across the whole list. But keeping a player because he’s cheap means you’re just gonna be a position down on field.
Younger, more skilled players that can be taught that role are a must.

By the way I’m still wondering how much Castagna and Aarts are on. Any guesses
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I luv George because the opposition cannot match him. He is a three time premiership player but I do come to the conclusion his role has diminished with Lynch coming in. Before that just Jack & the results speak for themselves. Got the boot for poor goal kicking then last week against Suns our stars needed to go to Spec Savers.
 
Did anyone see what George had done at VFL level to earn a recall as medical sub? I didn’t see the last VFL game but he was his usual self in the 2 previous games.
 
He wasn’t awful, but he also did pretty much nothing. Would have been better off giving the run to Stack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Why is he back? Just don’t get it. Surely we have better options. He’s done.

Did his usual George act by kicking the ball in 180 degrees from where it was meant to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
He has to have dropped in form. I get that he’s super quick and that’s scary for oppo defences, but he can’t have played the completely brainless football he now is in 3 Premierships.
 
Like how Dimma snuck him back in when no one was looking. There's better options in the vfl but George is Dimma's blindspot. He'll try to sneak Aarts in aswell somehow.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1 user
Might be on my Pat Malone but I was happy to have him as sub. Wasn't great or anything but worked hard and pressured and was good in the context of a game we just had to put our heads down and win in the wet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
He was back because as Coburg says above, he's an AFL-level athlete. I would have gone with Mansell but we already had six kids in the side so I can see the rationale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Might be on my Pat Malone but I was happy to have him as sub. Wasn't great or anything but worked hard and pressured and was good in the context of a game we just had to put our heads down and win in the wet.
Yes, I thought he was vibrant.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users