2007 NBA Draft Talent Ladder

[Warhawk]

Within a tier everyone is equal to you as far as potential impact. Once you've determined your tier ranking, then you do a secondary ranking within each tier, according to your team's need. So let's say you have your 6-9 players in the same tier. The 6th and 7th are PFs, the 8th is a SF, and #9 is a PG.

Your team desperately needs a PG first and then a PF. Your within tier ranking now goes 9PG, 6PF, 7PF and 8SF. So if everyone in that tier is available when you choose, you take #9, instead of #6. On the other hand, if, when you choose, 6, 7 and 9 are gone, you take #8. You do not drop to the next tier to get a PG or a PF, because at that point you think the SF at #8 is the BPA. You ranked him as a better player than anyone you could get in the next tier.

OK, but it still doesn't make any sense.

In that case, I would just put the players in the proper order instead of the srcrewed up one they started with.

You are still ranking by ability and need. The original ranking should be 6PG, 7PF, 8PF, 9SF instead of the screwed up mess they started with. Arranging them in the way they did originally is just counterproductive.

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see the point or advantage.

List the players you want in order and just go down the list. Put your "group" breaks in there for trade purposes, maybe, but still put them in order.

Or is there just some basic concept here I am mising????

 

[ParniValjak]

While things certainly have changed with the arrival of so many good international players, the standard for judging NBA prospects historically has been success at the college level. Oden and Durrant were locks for the top picks before they did a single NBA-supervised workout because they dominated college competition. So while college hoops may not be a "superior stage," it's all most of us have to go by.

You're right in saying that Yi has probably faced, and done well against, players comparable to U.S. collegiate players. And if Yi had played at UCLA or Arkansas or Minnesota, I'd probably be a lot more excited about him being there at No. 10. There's probably a little ethnocentrism, a little fear of the unknown, going on in my head. Sorry. He clearly has some good things going for him, and the Kings would probably be lucky to get him.

That being said, if the Kings drafted him and he were mediocre or a bust, I suspect a lot of folks who are pretty quiet now would say, "I told you so!" Whereas if the Kings drafted, say Green or Conley, and they didn't pan out, the reaction would more likely be, "How did that happen?"

I mean no disrespect to Yi. It's just a comfort level, a familiarity. If the Kings draft Yi, I'll buy his jersey and hope for the best.

But thats just fans being ignorant to the world outside of the USA. Other countries in the world play basketball too and some of them play it rather well. Hell some of them are genuine talent production countries that propably produce more NBA players per capita than the USA. Just because you folks don't see enough of these international prospects it doesn't mean they are not as good or that they are greater risks. How many people spat the dummy when Petrie picked Pedja instead of John Wallace?!

People need to realise that teams now days heavily scout the entire world to find good basketball players. Just because we fans don't get to see then doesn't mean that people from out team don't get to see them. I think a lot of fans are ignorant and think that basketball starts and ends in the USA and anyone outside of those borders are considered high risk! Why? Some of the leagues in the world are considerably stronger than the NCAA tournament. I wonder if Oden was a euroleague product whether or not there would be as much hype about him as there is now that he is a NCAA guy?! Probably not.

If someone like Green proves to be a solid player but someone like Yi turns out to be a star, I know I would be pretty pissed off that my team picked Green instead of Yi because of having a phobia of foregin players.

 

[Venom]

OK, but it still doesn't make any sense.

In that case, I would just put the players in the proper order instead of the srcrewed up one they started with.

You are still ranking by ability and need. The original ranking should be 6PG, 7PF, 8PF, 9SF instead of the screwed up mess they started with. Arranging them in the way they did originally is just counterproductive.

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see the point or advantage.

List the players you want in order and just go down the list. Put your "group" breaks in there for trade purposes, maybe, but still put them in order.

Or is there just some basic concept here I am mising????

What you are missing is that a team can cross-reference overall potential with team need by using the tier system. The glaring example that the Insider used was Atlanta taking Marvin Williams over Chris Paul and Deron Williams. All three, plus Bogut, had the same potential impact at their positions and were in Tier 1. Had Atlanta used a tier system, needing a C and PG, they would have ranked the players:

1. Bogut
2. Paul
2a. Deron Williams
4. Marvin Williams

Instead, they straight-ranked them, and instead of drafting one of the best two PGs of the next generation they took a guy who's been backing up J-Smoove. And they still need a PG so badly that they may reach this year at #3 for Conley, who is nowhere near the caliber of Deron Williams and Chris Paul.

The tier system makes things a lot more clinical come draft time. Rather than develop an overall board, you are merely trying to fit a prospect into an impact tier. You do not need to judge whether a guy will be better at SF than another guy will be at PF. No, the question is simply: "What is his overall potential impact at his position"? Once you establish the tier, you rank within that tier based on need, a clearly objective prospect. Let's break this down for us using the tiers developed by the Insider.

Tier 1:
Oden
Durant

Center is of greater need to us than SG

Tier 2:
Horford
Jianlin
Wright
Green
Brewer
Conley

The top four are all PFs. I rate Green as a PF because he is a legit 6'9" and could easily play the position in the running system we figure to employ under Theus. It seems a given that we will move Artest, while Bibby is not quite so certain, so Brewer is ahead of Conley. This tier really pains me, because I think Brewer is far and away the fourth best prospect in the draft. In fact, if I were to develop the tiers, Horford and Brewer would be in Tier 2 as guys I project as perennial All-Stars, and the rest would be in Tier 3, with the rest the tiers sliding down a spot correspondingly.

Tier 3:
Noah
Hawes
Wright
Thornton

Both Noah and Hawes are 4/5 kind of guys. I like Noah over Hawes. While Noah will never be a great scorer (an opinion I base on his lack of development over the last 2 years) he would be a great asset in an uptempo team. Hawes looks like the next Pryzbilla, a good inside scorer for mediocre teams. I have Wright over Thornton at the SF position, but that's really a toss-up.

Tier 4:
Thad Young
Law
Crittendon
Nick Young
Stuckey

Again, I have SF as a bigger need than PG, and SG is clearly our position of lowest need (Niick Young/Stuckey).

 

[Warhawk]

What you are missing is that a team can cross-reference overall potential with team need by using the tier system. The glaring example that the Insider used was Atlanta taking Marvin Williams over Chris Paul and Deron Williams. All three, plus Bogut, had the same potential impact at their positions and were in Tier 1. Had Atlanta used a tier system, needing a C and PG, they would have ranked the players:

1. Bogut
2. Paul
2a. Deron Williams
4. Marvin Williams

Instead, they straight-ranked them, and instead of drafting one of the best two PGs of the next generation they took a guy who's been backing up J-Smoove. And they still need a PG so badly that they may reach this year at #3 for Conley, who is nowhere near the caliber of Deron Williams and Chris Paul.

The tier system makes things a lot more clinical come draft time. Rather than develop an overall board, you are merely trying to fit a prospect into an impact tier. You do not need to judge whether a guy will be better at SF than another guy will be at PF. No, the question is simply: "What is his overall potential impact at his position"? Once you establish the tier, you rank within that tier based on need, a clearly objective prospect. Let's break this down for us using the tiers developed by the Insider.

Tier 1:
Oden
Durant

Center is of greater need to us than SG

Tier 2:
Horford
Jianlin
Wright
Green
Brewer
Conley

The top four are all PFs. I rate Green as a PF because he is a legit 6'9" and could easily play the position in the running system we figure to employ under Theus. It seems a given that we will move Artest, while Bibby is not quite so certain, so Brewer is ahead of Conley. This tier really pains me, because I think Brewer is far and away the fourth best prospect in the draft. In fact, if I were to develop the tiers, Horford and Brewer would be in Tier 2 as guys I project as perennial All-Stars, and the rest would be in Tier 3, with the rest the tiers sliding down a spot correspondingly.

Tier 3:
Noah
Hawes
Wright
Thornton

Both Noah and Hawes are 4/5 kind of guys. I like Noah over Hawes. While Noah will never be a great scorer (an opinion I base on his lack of development over the last 2 years) he would be a great asset in an uptempo team. Hawes looks like the next Pryzbilla, a good inside scorer for mediocre teams. I have Wright over Thornton at the SF position, but that's really a toss-up.

Tier 4:
Thad Young
Law
Crittendon
Nick Young
Stuckey

Again, I have SF as a bigger need than PG, and SG is clearly our position of lowest need (Niick Young/Stuckey).

OK, but again, all you have done is create a list of players you want in an order for drafting. Whether you put them in artificial groups first before putting them in that order seems inconsequential to me. I guess I am missing the reason you need the extra step of this tiering system.

To use your example, do I need to know that Horford and Jianlin are in Tier 2? No, I just need to know that if Oden and Durant are gone, these guys are next on my list. I know that because they are bigs and very talented, and based on talent and need they should be right up there for us.

Do I have Law up there at 5? No, because he isn't that good and others are better suited for being picked at 5. I don't need to see a tier # next to his name to know this.

Likewise, I am not going to have Noah on my list at 25-30. Why? Because the guy is talented and big, so he goes up higher than that.

I guess I am saying that in the end the tiers are kinda pointless. Just rank the guys how you want to draft and go down your list. The artificial groupings seems, well, superfluous. It's an artificial step that doesn't seem to me to have any value.

In your Atlanta example, I would say they just did a very poor ranking on their draft list. I don't see how this "tier" system would have helped. They obviously would have just put him in a higher tier to begin with and still chosen him where they did.

This tier system is no cure for stupidity.

 

[VF21]

But thats just fans being ignorant to the world outside of the USA. Other countries in the world play basketball too and some of them play it rather well. Hell some of them are genuine talent production countries that propably produce more NBA players per capita than the USA. Just because you folks don't see enough of these international prospects it doesn't mean they are not as good or that they are greater risks. How many people spat the dummy when Petrie picked Pedja instead of John Wallace?!

People need to realise that teams now days heavily scout the entire world to find good basketball players. Just because we fans don't get to see then doesn't mean that people from out team don't get to see them. I think a lot of fans are ignorant and think that basketball starts and ends in the USA and anyone outside of those borders are considered high risk! Why? Some of the leagues in the world are considerably stronger than the NCAA tournament. I wonder if Oden was a euroleague product whether or not there would be as much hype about him as there is now that he is a NCAA guy?! Probably not.

If someone like Green proves to be a solid player but someone like Yi turns out to be a star, I know I would be pretty pissed off that my team picked Green instead of Yi because of having a phobia of foregin players.

Whoa...

I think you're making a lot of erroneous assumptions about American fans.

International players ARE greater risks. There are the cultural differences to be overcome along with subtle differences in the philosophy of the game itself, etc.

Coming into the NBA is pretty much risky for ANY player, regardless of where he calls home. When you add in the "stranger in a strange land" factor, it is almost an inescapable risk. It's not saying anything negative about the foreign players; it's just pointing out the obvious.

 

[VF21]

OK, but again, all you have done is create a list of players you want in an order for drafting. Whether you put them in artificial groups first before putting them in that order seems inconsequential to me. I guess I am missing the reason you need the extra step of this tiering system.

To use your example, do I need to know that Horford and Jianlin are in Tier 2? No, I just need to know that if Oden and Durant are gone, these guys are next on my list. I know that because they are bigs and very talented, and based on talent and need they should be right up there for us.

Do I have Law up there at 5? No, because he isn't that good and others are better suited for being picked at 5. I don't need to see a tier # next to his name to know this.

Likewise, I am not going to have Noah on my list at 25-30. Why? Because the guy is talented and big, so he goes up higher than that.

I guess I am saying that in the end the tiers are kinda pointless. Just rank the guys how you want to draft and go down your list. The artificial groupings seems, well, superfluous. It's an artificial step that doesn't seem to me to have any value.

In your Atlanta example, I would say they just did a very poor ranking on their draft list. I don't see how this "tier" system would have helped. They obviously would have just put him in a higher tier to begin with and still chosen him where they did.

This tier system is no cure for stupidity.

Good explanation IMHO, Warhawk. "Rank the guys how you want to draft and go down your list." Clear-cut and simple. And you can always leave room for the unexpected in case everyone else is held up in traffic and Durant is still available at the 10.

 

[Bricklayer]

Too much is being made of this. It just so happens in this draft there are some fairly distinct tiers of talent, regardless of team needs, talent/star potential. Hence the drop off in what a team would trade to get the #2 as opposed to the #3 pick is immense. Similarly, the gap betwen the #6 to #8 is much larger than the gap from #9 to #11. No magic to it. (of course as always it should be "apparent talent" -- there will always be some guy down lower who will outperform some of the guys up higher).

 

[VF21]

I don't actually see any distinction. If you rank the players according to your assessment of their possible value to your team, you have a list of players. If you rank players by tiers and then - within the tiers - rank the players according to your assessment of their possible value to your team, aren't you going to have pretty much the same list of names regardless of which method you use to get to them?

Or am I hopelessly L&C?

 

[Bricklayer]

I don't actually see any distinction. If you rank the players according to your assessment of their possible value to your team, you have a list of players. If you rank players by tiers and then - within the tiers - rank the players according to your assessment of their possible value to your team, aren't you going to have pretty much the same list of names regardless of which method you use to get to them?

Or am I hopelessly L&C?

In this particular draft you might, but that's only because of how distinct the talent breaks are. No matter how much you may need a PG, there is simply no way you would ever consider taking Mike Conley at the #2 spot (the question wih him being whether he's 2nd tier or 3rd).

In a more egalitarian draft without the clear cut tiers, I would think each team could have considerabl different lists -- a team in need of a PG could have 4 of the top 8 guys on their list as PGs, vs. a team in need of a center etc. But this year there are just certian boundaries, where no matter what you need, you are reaching, perhaps foolishly, if you take a player below the cutoff of the tier you are in. Seattle will take Kevin Durant, even though their best two players are very similar. Atlanta, Boston and Memphis are all in pickles because the tier they are in is full of guys (PFs) that they don't really need. Wouldn't be as big a deal most years for them to go after PGs or Cs or whatnot due to need. But this year there are these clear breaks, where if you reach you may look really foolish.

 

[kennadog]

I don't actually see any distinction. If you rank the players according to your assessment of their possible value to your team, you have a list of players. If you rank players by tiers and then - within the tiers - rank the players according to your assessment of their possible value to your team, aren't you going to have pretty much the same list of names regardless of which method you use to get to them?

Or am I hopelessly L&C?

What I've bolded is not what the article describes as a "straight 1-30 ranking." I think the confusion might be that the "straight ranking" they are comparing the "tier system" to, is a ranking based solely on a BPA ranking, regardless of team need. (Of course, there will be differences among teams as to who they think is BPA would be 1-30.)

In other words, the "straight ranking" is ranking players strictly in regard to what they think is the first best player, 2nd best player etc, without any consideration of what the the team needs are. Therefore, they posited that Atlanta took who they considered the BPA on their turn that year. When they selected, the PGs available were not the overall BPA left on the boards, according to how they had ranked players.

So the straight ranking they describe isn't a ranking of "BPA that meets our need ranking." The tier system is supposed to combine the idea of straight "best player available" ranking, then trying to divide it into the tiers where you think they might be equal talent and then doing a second sort by team need.

The end result is, of course, a "straight ranking" of players 1-30 for that specific team. But it's a straight ranking where that team will put some players that they actually consider possible better players below some other players, but just not too far below.

It does seem obvious, but apparently not every team does this. Imagine the "straight ranking" that's being compared to the "tier system" as a ranking done by someone who isn't associated with any team and just wants to list what they think the order of available players is from the best to the lowest.

Then, contrast that with the "tier system." That is the comparison they are making in the article. You do end up with a list in numerical order, but the straight BPA list a team makes may, but probably will not be in the same order as the tier system list. One is a single sort (BPA) and the other uses multiple sorts, because its based on more than one criteria.

It made sense to me, but maybe I'm not explaining it very well.

 

[Warhawk]

What I've bolded is not what the article describes as a "straight 1-30 ranking." I think the confusion might be that the "straight ranking" they are comparing the "tier system" to, is a ranking based solely on a BPA ranking, regardless of team need. (Of course, there will be differences among teams as to who they think is BPA would be 1-30.)

In other words, the "straight ranking" is ranking players strictly in regard to what they think is the first best player, 2nd best player etc, without any consideration of what the the team needs are. Therefore, they posited that Atlanta took who they considered the BPA on their turn that year. When they selected, the PGs available were not the overall BPA left on the boards, according to how they had ranked players.

So the straight ranking they describe isn't a ranking of "BPA that meets our need ranking." The tier system is supposed to combine the idea of straight "best player available" ranking, then trying to divide it into the tiers where you think they might be equal talent and then doing a second sort by team need.

The end result is, of course, a "straight ranking" of players 1-30 for that specific team. But it's a straight ranking where that team will put some players that they actually consider possible better players below some other players, but just not too far below.

It does seem obvious, but apparently not every team does this. Imagine the "straight ranking" that's being compared to the "tier system" as a ranking done by someone who isn't associated with any team and just wants to list what they think the order of available players is from the best to the lowest.

Then, contrast that with the "tier system." That is the comparison they are making in the article. You do end up with a list in numerical order, but the straight BPA list a team makes may, but probably will not be in the same order as the tier system list. One is a single sort (BPA) and the other uses multiple sorts, because its based on more than one criteria.

It made sense to me, but maybe I'm not explaining it very well.

KD-

No, I think that helps somewhat, but my point is it should be common sense to incorporate both BPA and need into your straight rank. If teams don't do that, they are idiots.

I mean, if I were making a list, both BPA and need would be involved. I guess this may just be some kind of a formalized system to incorporate that???

Maybe these NBA GMs are the same folks who need the "Caution, product is hot" warning on the side of McDonalds coffee cups....

 

[VF21]

What I've bolded is not what the article describes as a "straight 1-30 ranking." I think the confusion might be that the "straight ranking" they are comparing the "tier system" to, is a ranking based solely on a BPA ranking, regardless of team need. (Of course, there will be differences among teams as to who they think is BPA would be 1-30.)

In other words, the "straight ranking" is ranking players strictly in regard to what they think is the first best player, 2nd best player etc, without any consideration of what the the team needs are. Therefore, they posited that Atlanta took who they considered the BPA on their turn that year. When they selected, the PGs available were not the overall BPA left on the boards, according to how they had ranked players.

So the straight ranking they describe isn't a ranking of "BPA that meets our need ranking." The tier system is supposed to combine the idea of straight "best player available" ranking, then trying to divide it into the tiers where you think they might be equal talent and then doing a second sort by team need.

The end result is, of course, a "straight ranking" of players 1-30 for that specific team. But it's a straight ranking where that team will put some players that they actually consider possible better players below some other players, but just not too far below.

It does seem obvious, but apparently not every team does this. Imagine the "straight ranking" that's being compared to the "tier system" as a ranking done by someone who isn't associated with any team and just wants to list what they think the order of available players is from the best to the lowest.

Then, contrast that with the "tier system." That is the comparison they are making in the article. You do end up with a list in numerical order, but the straight BPA list a team makes may, but probably will not be in the same order as the tier system list. One is a single sort (BPA) and the other uses multiple sorts, because its based on more than one criteria.

It made sense to me, but maybe I'm not explaining it very well.

Actually, between this explanation and the comments Brick made, I think I now understand.

Of course, I would always include team needs in my equation because I'm not a real big fan of drafting someone you don't need because he might be better - even though you don't need him - than someone else.

Thanks to you and Brickie...

 

[VF21]

...Maybe these NBA GMs are the same folks who need the "Caution, product is hot" warning on the side of McDonalds coffee cups....

Totally off-topic, but the best one I've seen was the one on a hair dryer that says, "Do not submerge in water while in use."

 

[Starting Five]

Maybe Yi's the best thing from China since kung pao chicken, but there are some question marks that make me a bit nervous and may be causing him to slide down draft boards a tad. As a Kings fan, I'd just feel more comfortable with them taking a player who has faced college competition and about whom more is known. This is from Chad Ford's ESPN Insider story of Thursday:

"Is Yi The Real Deal?

It really depends on whom you ask. Since I wrote my first story on Yi, I've been flooded with e-mails and a few phone calls from skeptics. While everyone agrees that Yi is an interesting prospect and one of the elite players in China, some think he is being vastly overrated by NBA teams.
Why?
The two common concerns I am hearing are about his age and about his lack of toughness and overall basketball IQ."

The more of these " anti-Yi " articles that come out, the more I think Yi is going to be a high draft-pick..i.e much higher than the #10 pick. These articles are " gorillia dust " .