Chad Ford's 1st ever draft breakdown by tiers

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2011/insider/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=Tiers-110616

Every time I put up a new mock draft (Mock Draft 5.0 came out Wednesday), I get a lot of feedback from readers who wonder how I put it together and how it differs from the Top 100. This is how it works: Both pieces are reported pieces. In other words, I talk with NBA scouts and executives to get a sense of:

A. Which teams like which players (mock draft).

B. What the consensus is among all 30 NBA teams about who the best players in the draft are (Top 100).

I use the word "consensus" lightly. Often, even GMs and scouts employed by the same team can't agree on rankings of players.

I had a very interesting conversation in Treviso, Italy, last week with a number of NBA executives and scouts about just how subjective this process is, how many backroom fights go on, and how, from time to time, teams literally don't make up their minds until they are on the clock. They gave me a lot of (off the record) funny examples. The point was that every team does things a little differently, and even within a team, there often isn't much consensus.

Obviously, both the mock draft and Top 100 are imperfect because the draft is an inexact science. NBA teams do more than watch prospects play games. They work out players, give them psychological tests, do background checks and conduct personal interviews. All of this factors into the process and can change opinions.

Factor in the ranking wars with another age-old debate -- do you draft for need or for the best player available? -- and it's no surprise the draft can be so volatile. Many teams take into account holes at certain positions (i.e., the team has no small forward) or coaching/system preferences (i.e., the Knicks draft players who can fit into coach Mike D'Antoni's system) when making their decisions.

To make sense of disparate rankings and debates over team needs, the past few years I've chronicled a draft ranking system employed by several teams that have been very successful in the draft, what I call a tier system. Instead of developing an exact order from one to 60 of the best players in the draft, these teams group players, based on overall talent, into tiers. Then, the teams rank the players in each tier based on team need.

This system allows teams to draft not only the best player available, but also the player who best fits a team's individual needs.

So what do the tiers look like this year? After talking to several GMs and scouts whose teams employ this system, I put together these tiers. (Because the teams do not want to divulge their draft rankings publicly, the teams will remain anonymous.)

Players are listed alphabetically in each tier.


Tier 1
None

Note: This category is usually reserved for guys who are surefire All-Stars/franchise players. Last year, John Wall was the only guy in this tier. In 2009, Blake Griffin was the guy here. This year, Kyrie Irving and Derrick Williams are at the top of the draft, but neither guy is projected as a franchise player or a surefire All-Star.

Tier 2
Kyrie Irving (draft range: 1 to 2)
Derrick Williams (1 to 3)
Note: Irving and Williams are the two top players on the boards of the teams I spoke with, regardless of team needs. Both players are projected to be starters and potential All-Stars. While it looks like Irving has the best shot of going No. 1, there's still an outside chance it could be Williams.

Tier 3
Enes Kanter (2 to 6)
Brandon Knight (3 to 7)
Kawhi Leonard (5 to 9)
Jonas Valanciunas (3 to 8)
Jan Vesely (3 to 10)
Kemba Walker (3 to 9)

Note: This is a larger-than-usual Tier 3, which says something about how NBA GMs are seeing this draft. They believe the six players above all have NBA All-Star potential, but all six have significant weaknesses that could keep them from living up to it. All six players were consensus Top 10 picks. Leonard and Walker barely squeaked into this tier. A number of teams have them in Tier 4. Some teams believe Knight, Kanter and Valanciunas could all end up as Tier 2, or even Tier 1, players over time.

Tier 4
Bismack Biyombo (8 to 20)
Alec Burks (10 to 17)
Jimmer Fredette (7 to 15)
Marcus Morris (9 to 15)
Chris Singleton (10 to 18)
Klay Thompson (9 to 17)
Tristan Thompson (6 to 16)

Note: This is a smaller-than-usual tier and it was difficult to find a real consensus here. Teams are saying that these seven players will likely fill out the rest of the lottery. This is where the real depth of the draft is. Biyombo, Burks, Singleton and both Thompsons each got one or two Tier 5 votes. Since we've listed 15 players, one of these eight will likely slip out of the lottery.

Tier 5
Davis Bertans (17-29)
Marshon Brooks (13-20)
Kenneth Faried (13-21)
Jordan Hamilton (11-19)
Tobias Harris (14-22)
Tyler Honeycutt (18-30)
Reggie Jackson (17-31)
Nikola Mirotic (20-30)
Darius Morris (21-35)
Markieff Morris (13-19)
Donatas Motiejunas (12-20)
Josh Selby (17-28)
Nikola Vucevic (14-21)

Note: These players look like locks for the first round, but most likely won't make the lottery. A few teams had Brooks, Harris, Markieff Morris and Vucevic in Tier 4, but not quite enough for them to make the cut; they were very close, though. Bertans, Honeycutt, Jackson, Mirotic and Darius Morris were borderline picks here. Every one of these players dropped out of the top 30 on at least one NBA team's draft board.

Tier 6 (All First-Round Bubble)
Bojan Bogdanovic
Jimmy Butler
Norris Cole
Justin Harper
Charles Jenkins
JaJuan Johnson
Malcolm Lee
Travis Leslie
Jon Leuer Shelvin Mack
Chandler Parsons
Kyle Singler
Iman Shumpert
Nolan Smith
Trey Thompkins
Jeremy Tyler
Jordan Williams

Note: This is what I would call the first-round bubble group, and this is where the consensus started to break down. A few teams had Harper, Jenkins and Tyler in Tier 5, but many did not. Overall, there are just two spaces left in the first round ... so most of the players on this list are falling to the second round.

So how does the tier system work?
A team ranks players in each tier according to team need. So, in Tier 4, if point guard is the biggest need, a player like Fredette is ranked No. 1. If shooting guard is the biggest need, Alec Burks or Klay Thompson is ranked No. 1.

The rules are pretty simple. A team always drafts its highest-ranked player in a given tier. Also, a team never takes a player from a lower tier if one from a higher tier is available. So, for example, the Bucks are drafting No. 10 (Tier 4 territory); if Kawhi Leonard (a Tier 3 player) is on the board, they take him regardless of positional need. If the Bucks have Klay Thompson ranked No. 1 in Tier 4, they still take Leonard, even though shooting guard is a more pressing need.

This system protects teams from overreaching based on team need. The Bucks won't pass on a clearly superior player like Leonard to fill a need with Thompson. However, the system also protects a team from passing on a player who fits a need just because he might be ranked one or two spots lower overall.

Last year, I gave you my all-time favorite historical example from the Atlanta Hawks. Because of team positional needs, former GM Billy Knight took Marvin Williams ahead of Chris Paul and Deron Williams in 2005, and Shelden Williams ahead of guards such as Brandon Roy and Rajon Rondo in 2006.

Here's another one: The Raptors selected Rafael Araujo with the eighth pick in the 2004 NBA draft because they needed a center desperately. Most teams had Araujo as a Tier 4 player, but the Raptors selected him in a Tier 2 category because there were no centers available in their tier.

If the Raptors had employed a tier system, they would have ranked inside the tier based on team need and fit, rather than just ranking the prospects from 1-30.

In that case, the Raptors likely would have grabbed a player like Andre Iguodala instead.

Like every draft system, the tier system isn't perfect. But the teams that run it have found success with it. It has allowed them to get help through the draft without overreaching. Compared to traditional top-30 lists or mock drafts, it seems like a much more precise tool of gauging which players a team should draft.

 

Hmm... Very nice, but for instance, I think the Rockets don't do that. They actually rank all the players on a single list, considering the talent level, upside, chances of reaching that potential, work ethic, character, team need... We don't know the previous steps, but seems like that's their final goal, a single list.

We don't know how they weigh each factor, but based on what I've heard from Morey in the past, I'd say that they actually do this.

 

Actually, I think you can do what you describe AND have a tier system. Just factor all of your considerations into coming up with the Rockets' own tiers. Then, rank the players within each tier based on team needs. Put the list all together, and BOOM, you've got your draft board.

 

Mmm, truth. But I doubt they do that. The global difference between a player of the 2nd tier and a player of the 3rd tier can be minimal and at the same time you're considering that the 2nd-almost-3rd tier player is ANOTHER PF, and the 3rd-almost-2nd tier player is a big SF. I think Morey would get the SF; at Chad Ford's way it would be always the PF. That system is too rigid, and frankly, I don't imagine a wizard using something that rudimentary.

 

I disagree. The tier system works because it strikes a balance between the fluidity needed to take a player who fills a positional need with the rigidity and discipline that teams need to have in order to ensure that they take the best player available rather than reaching for a clearly lesser player just for the sake of filling a position of need.

I can assure you that, in your example above:

(1) If the difference was really THAT close, those two players would likely be in the same tier. The entire notion of "tiers" is to separate the quality of players.

(2) Morey wouldn't even blink before taking another PF . . . if that player was clearly better than any other player available. He did it last year, despite already having Scola, Hill and Jeffries. Now he has Scola, Patterson and Hill; but acquiring the best player available makes it much easier to part with a Scola or a Patterson in subsequent trades. Daryl won't limit his "asset pool" just for the sake of taking a SF. He can always try and fill that need at #23, in free agency, or in next year's draft.

 

I'm not claiming the "draft for need". Supposedly we are talking about very small differences... However, I think that a GM should set a limit for a given amount of quality players for a same position, because at one point I think that could adversely affect the development of the young players that you have at that position. Even the team chemistry.

 

Exactly... which is why it works. You can see in Chad Ford's tiers that each tier is clearly distinct. Biyombo's upper end might slip him into a higher tier, but only at the extreme upper end of his ranking, otherwise he is a solid Tier 4.

The question would be is it always as clearcut as this on actual team's draft boards and/or every year?

Agree with this, too, which is why I'd almost expect to see deviation from this, at least from Morey, the other way. Instead of reaching (ala Atlanta, Toronto) based on need, just pick the best player available, even within a tier.

Looking at Biyombo again - I know many have him as a center, but consider if he was really only a PF. Which is NOT a position of need for the Rockets. But if you believe Chad Ford's rankings, Biyombo is probably the best Tier 3 player. if DM agreed, I could see him still taking Biyombo, even if the reality was he could ONLY play PF. Cause DM loves "assets".

The Tier doesn't mean crap if in 5 years half of the guys in the same Tier turn out ok and the other half are busts, and you happened to draft a bust because you were drafting for need within a Tier.

So while I think the Tier system is a great system to have, I think you also have to have a simple best player available ranking - which I'm sure most GMs do - and if when it comes time to select, you just go BPA.

 

The tier system is the easy part. Now rank the guys appropriately by tier. That's what sets a good and bad team apart, not what system they use. This is how I'm guessing the Rockets ranked the players last year.

2010:
Tier 1 - John Wall
Tier 2 - Demarcus Cousins, Derrick Favors, Greg Monroe
Tier 3 - Evan Turner, Patrick Patterson (#6), Ed Davis, Al-Farouq Aminu
Tier 4 - Wesley Johnson, Paul George, Ekpe Udoh...

To me the potential has little role in determining tier, more often, what separates the tiers are the consistency of each player in his previous level of basketball.

 

If Walker somehow slipped to 14, you bet your ass Morey will be taking another undersized point guard.

He doesn't give one ass about positional depth. Why else would he take Patterson with Scola and Hill.

 

That's partially correct. He doesn't give one ass about positional depth in the draft.

Various members of the organization have stated that their philosophy is to take the best player available, because positional needs can always be addressed through trade, and the better players you have to trade, the better players you'll get back.

For instance, there were centers we could have taken last year to fill our hole at the 5, but none of them were very good. Instead, we took Patterson, who looks good enough to make Scola redundant. If we're able to trade Luis or Patrick for a center, the center we get back will be better than one we could have drafted. That's why you always go for BPA.

 

Repped.

 

Very insightful. But this could of course change too when teams select said player for a trade and not every teams draft board is the same so it's still a crap shoot. I'm sticking with Motiejunas and Vucevic being taken #14 and #23.