Every time I put up a new mock draft (Mock Draft 7.0 is the latest in the series), I get a lot of feedback from readers who wonder how I put it together and how it differs from the Big Board (edition 11.0 was recently updated) and 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 (Big Board and Top 100).
To make sense of disparate rankings and debates over team needs versus best player available, 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 1 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 how does the tier system work?
A team ranks players in each tier according to team need. So in Tier 3, if shooting guard is the biggest need, a shooting guard is ranked No. 1. If center is the biggest need, center is ranked No. 1.
The rules are pretty simple. You always draft the highest-ranked player in a given tier. Also, you never take a player from a lower tier if one from a higher tier is available.
For example, in the 2012 NBA draft, if the Detroit Pistons are drafting No. 9 (Tier 3 territory) and Damian Lillard (a Tier 2 player) is on the board, they take him regardless of positional need. If they have a center ranked No. 1 in Tier 4, they still take Lillard even though center is a more pressing need.
This system protects teams from overreaching based on team need. 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. Let me give you an example of how using draft tiers would've prevented a horrific draft mistake in the 2005 NBA draft.
Former Atlanta Hawks GM Billy Knight stated every year that he took the best player on the board, regardless of team need. He took Marvin Williams ahead of Chris Paul and Deron Williams in 2005, and Shelden Williams ahead of a point guard such as Rajon Rondo in 2006.
A source formerly with Atlanta's front office told me that the Hawks had Marvin Williams ranked No. 1, Andrew Bogut ranked No. 2, Deron Williams ranked No. 3 and Paul ranked No. 4 in 2005. So on draft night, Knight took Marvin Williams with the No. 2 pick after the Bucks selected Bogut No. 1 overall.
In a tier system, however, the source conceded that all four players, in his mind at least, would have been Tier 1 players -- in other words, the Hawks thought all four had equal long-term impact potential. If the Hawks 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 to 30.
In that case, the Hawks likely would have ranked either Bogut (they needed a center) or Deron Williams (they still need a point guard) No. 1. Marvin Williams actually would have been ranked No. 4 under that scenario. The Pistons actually followed this model in 2012 draft. While the consensus was that they needed a big, when Brandon Knight -- a player they had ranked in a higher tier -- fell, they took him anyway.
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 for gauging which players a team should draft.