the "BPA" debate (1 Viewer)

[BrianFromWA]

This is taken from Ford's "Tier" system last year:

"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 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. The system 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."

So, unless others see it differently, I would imagine we all agree that Davis is Tier One and Robinson, MKG, Beal (and maybe Barnes, now) are all Tier Two. Tier Three would be guys with either some risk from upside (like Sullinger or Marshall), motor (PJ3, Drummond), questions about their college play (Lillard, T.Jones) or that they haven't shown NBA skill yet (Zeller, Henson).

Since Robinson, MKG, Beal and Barnes (I'll put him in there) are in the same tier, you still have to rank them on need. Robinson isn't far and away above the others in talent---he isn't in a tier by himself. Now, if we had, say, #2 and #7, and we took Barnes or MKG at #2 because we thought SF was our biggest need in that tier, and Robinson was available at 7...you'd take Robinson b/c he's a tier above everyone left. At that point you say "who cares if we need a C or PG: I'm not passing on Robinson for Lillard or Drummond b/c Robinson's a tier above."

Personally, I think that both 6 and 11 are in the same tier. Trading with CLE allows us to move up a tier and take the (maybe?) the last Tier Two guy available, where trading with CHA allows us our pick of them. Staying at 6 and we miss out on Tier Two unless there's a major reach (like the Kings taking Sullinger or something).

So I'd rank based on our needs the Tier Two like this: MKG, Barnes, Beal, Robinson. What say you?

 

[Mediocre Man]

Awesome, can't wait for this thread to take off. Awesome job, Brian

 

[BrianFromWA]

My Personal Tiers: (I'm outside the box by being high on Ross and Barnes and Wroten and low on Marshall, Henson and Zeller)

Tier One (This category is usually reserved for guys who are surefire All-Stars/franchise players.): Davis

Tier Two projected to be starters and potential All-Stars. : MKG, Barnes, Beal, Robinson. (Note: if you don't like Barnes as much as some, you drop him a tier)

Tier Three have NBA All-Star potential, but all six have significant weaknesses that could keep them from living up to it : Lillard, Drummond, Jones Boys, Waiters, Lamb, Sullinger, Ross

Tier Four: Zeller, Henson, Leonard, Marshall, Rivers, Wroten

 

[Rhal]

Great job.
Had a nice dream about the draft last night, we traded with cleveland because Trobb was there at 4 and then grabbed Wroten at 24. Not gonna actually happen but would be awesome.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Interesting approach.

I would say Robinson is tier 1.5. I would also move Beal to the top of tier 2 (based on him being the only one who can create his own offense).

IMHO, there is no need to move up into the 3-5 range. The odds are very high that one (at least) of your tier 2 guys will fall to #6.

 

[handiman]

My problem with this approach is it all unravels when you can't precisely define the cut-off points between tiers. I strongly disagree that Drummond isn't a tier 2 guy, for example.

 

[BrianFromWA]

that's fine. Part of this thread is to see who people think are in which tiers. I have Drummond lower because I think there's a 60% chance that he's the 3rd-best C in the league in 3 years, and a 40% chance he's Oliver Miller.

 

[Pinwheel1]

My Personal Tiers: (I'm outside the box by being high on Ross and Barnes and Wroten and low on Marshall, Henson and Zeller)

Tier One (This category is usually reserved for guys who are surefire All-Stars/franchise players.): Davis

Tier Two projected to be starters and potential All-Stars. : MKG, Barnes, Beal, Robinson. (Note: if you don't like Barnes as much as some, you drop him a tier)

Tier Three have NBA All-Star potential, but all six have significant weaknesses that could keep them from living up to it : Lillard, Drummond, Jones Boys, Waiters, Lamb, Sullinger, Ross

Tier Four: Zeller, Henson, Leonard, Marshall, Rivers, Wroten

Yes that was a good read. Thanks for that and I agree with a lot of your personal tiers. The main excepton being Rivers. To me he will be better than a few you have in tier 3. I was surprised he measured out as well as he did. I bet he is gone by 11.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

My problem with this approach is it all unravels when you can't precisely define the cut-off points between tiers. I strongly disagree that Drummond isn't a tier 2 guy, for example.

And this is my issue as well. As an example, Sullinger is greatly debated if he is even an NBA caliber material. And one well reputed mock has Lamb in the second round. So it all comes down, again, to properly evaluating talent, because our needs are easy- we need talent at every position except PF.

 

[Blazinaway]

This is taken from Ford's "Tier" system last year:



So, unless others see it differently, I would imagine we all agree that Davis is Tier One and Robinson, MKG, Beal (and maybe Barnes, now) are all Tier Two. Tier Three would be guys with either some risk from upside (like Sullinger or Marshall), motor (PJ3, Drummond), questions about their college play (Lillard, T.Jones) or that they haven't shown NBA skill yet (Zeller, Henson).

Since Robinson, MKG, Beal and Barnes (I'll put him in there) are in the same tier, you still have to rank them on need. Robinson isn't far and away above the others in talent---he isn't in a tier by himself. Now, if we had, say, #2 and #7, and we took Barnes or MKG at #2 because we thought SF was our biggest need in that tier, and Robinson was available at 7...you'd take Robinson b/c he's a tier above everyone left. At that point you say "who cares if we need a C or PG: I'm not passing on Robinson for Lillard or Drummond b/c Robinson's a tier above."

Personally, I think that both 6 and 11 are in the same tier. Trading with CLE allows us to move up a tier and take the (maybe?) the last Tier Two guy available, where trading with CHA allows us our pick of them. Staying at 6 and we miss out on Tier Two unless there's a major reach (like the Kings taking Sullinger or something).

So I'd rank based on our needs the Tier Two like this: MKG, Barnes, Beal, Robinson. What say you?

This can be subjective as I would include Drummond in the Tier II group just because his upside is so high but his risk of course is higher as well. The other guys may be "safer" picks but they also likely do not have game/team changing upside potential, again IMO. So "for me", drafting 6, I would take Drummond if he fell.

 

[Eastoff]

My problem with this approach is it all unravels when you can't precisely define the cut-off points between tiers. I strongly disagree that Drummond isn't a tier 2 guy, for example.

The tier 2 guys should be guaranteed legit starters by next year. Do you think Drummond is a guaranteed starter?

 

[Reep]

I basically like Brian's tiers, but agree there are some tweeners:

Tier One: Davis

Tier 1.5: Robinson

Tier Two: MKG, Barnes, Beal,

Tier 2.2: Drummond*, Lillard* [*either could be better than MKG, Barnes]

Tier Three: PJIII, Leonard, Marshall, Ross

Tier Four: Zeller, Sullinger, Lamb, Rivers, Henson, Waiters, T. Jones, Moultrie

 

[BrianFromWA]

But if Drummond is in the Tier Two group, that means you'd take him at #2 since C is one of our bigger positions of need (moreso than a SF, SG or PF). Would you?

 

[Blazinaway]

But if Drummond is in the Tier Two group, that means you'd take him at #2 since C is one of our bigger positions of need (moreso than a SF, SG or PF). Would you?

LOL, depends on the in depth anaylsis our scouts have done and the workouts and definitely the interview process as well. With Drummond much depends on his Motor/work ethic, if thru this analysy/interview process we got a good feeling about that then yes I take him at 2, if it's a bad feeling I don't draft him.

 

[Reep]

But if Drummond is in the Tier Two group, that means you'd take him at #2 since C is one of our bigger positions of need (moreso than a SF, SG or PF). Would you?

If you believe that he really loves basketball and was just not on a good team last year, then I think you could put him in Tier 2. That is more information than I have.

 

[Eastoff]

I basically like Brian's tiers, but agree there are some tweeners:

Tier One: Davis

Tier 1.5: Robinson

Tier Two: MKG, Barnes, Beal,

Tier 2.2: Drummond*, Lillard* [*either could be better than MKG, Barnes]

Tier Three: PJIII, Leonard, Marshall, Ross

Tier Four: Zeller, Sullinger, Lamb, Rivers, Henson, Waiters, T. Jones, Moultrie

I don't think Marshall could be 8, but at 11 sure!

 

[Blaze01]

Good post, I understand why they do a tier system, but I don't necessarily agree that it serves a team the best....If you screw up just slightly on your tier rankings it could still have you reaching for a need over a better player.....

Only given is Davis in Tier 1

Depending on a team Tier 2 could be as many as 8 or so players or as few as 2? I think there is a pretty good consensus of 5 players in Robinson, Beal, MKG, Barnes & Drummond

Tier 3 IMO could be much larger...12+ players? and that is the problem with this sysytem the more players in the tier the less useful it becomes I would think....

 

[handiman]

The tier 2 guys should be guaranteed legit starters by next year. Do you think Drummond is a guaranteed starter?

Yes, I actually do. I think any team in the top-6 that drafts him will be starting him on opening night. That's not to say that I think he'll dominate his first year, but I do think he'll hold his own. (As long as he's not asked to shoot.)

 

[RR7]

Good post, I understand why they do a tier system, but I don't necessarily agree that it serves a team the best....If you screw up just slightly on your tier rankings it could still have you reaching for a need over a better player.....

And if you screw up in your BPA rankings, you can miss out on better players also. There's plenty of room for error in the draft, not just one way they can screw up.
Often times, there isn't a lot of seperation between a couple of guys, which makes the tier system more useful than trying to just rank them 1 through 60.

 

[Blaze01]

Yeah that is true, but rather it be that than b\c I put that guy in a tier lower\higher as my reason\justification. I could see it have some use as a visual reminder not to to overeach for need.

 

[handiman]

Often times, there isn't a lot of seperation between a couple of guys, which makes the tier system more useful than trying to just rank them 1 through 60.

I think the 1 through 60 ranking approach is actually a lot more valuable, just much more difficult. If you can't make a definitive choice between any two players ("would I rather have player A or player B on my team?"), then you haven't done your homework. The Tier system just helps you gloss over those uncertainties, but in the end, it still comes down to having ranked everyone in the tier head to head.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Just an FYI to those that might have missed it, Olshey said he uses the tier system either during his press conference or in his interview with MB and Wheels afterwards. He basically said if you have a player in tier 3, for example, that was an absolute position of need, he would never draft that player over a tier 2 guy even if we are deep at that position.

I just hope they tier guys correctly

Here is my attempt for Portland

Tier 1: I really don't think there are any franchise players in this draft, but Davis is probably better than everyone else

Tier 2: Davis, Robinson

Tier 3: Drummond, Beal, Ross, Barnes, MKG

Tier 4: Lillard, PJ III, Sullinger, Moultrie, Marshall, Waiters, Jones, Lamb, Rivers, Harkless

Tier 5: Leonard, Zeller, Henson


My mock

1. Davis
2. Robinson
3. Beal
4. Barnes
5. MKG
6. Drummond (Using the tiers above) Highest tiered player on the board for our needs
7. Sullinger
8. Lillard
9. Henson
10. Rivers
11. Ross (Tier 3 guy still on the board, even though it's not a higher need than say a PG

 

[3RA1N1AC]

the "tier system" is crap unless you have good scouting, or else you could have leonard in tier 1 because he "runs fast around cones"

 

[ironcrotch]

The majority of these guys have been scouted since puberty.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Would be interesting for someone to compile several posters' "tiers" and then rank the top 15-20 prospects based on aggregate.

I'm too lazy to do it, but I'd be curious to see how it'd turn out.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

The majority of these guys have been scouted since puberty.

yet thabeet goes #2, go figure

 

[BlazerCaravan]

That one guy with his Excel sheets has some pretty clear tiers. We should try to get him or her to integrate into this thread. I liked that analysis, and it dovetails nicely into this discussion.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

yet thabeet goes #2, go figure

The trick with scouting is that you have to also not be an idiot.

 

[BrianFromWA]

The trick with scouting is that you have to also not be an idiot.

That holds true in a lot of walks of life.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Here is a question that might stir some good debate

Is it better to draft one tier 2 guy, or two tier 3 or a tier 3 and 4 guy?