I feel vindicated. In providing a mock draft only on the top 14 =
(lottery)=20
picks, I wrote that going beyond that would've been "tedious and =
irresponsible."=20
Mock drafts are among those fixtures that the sports media have been =
churning=20
out in rote fashion for decades. Fans and readers seem to demand this =
analysis,=20
even though it is rarely based on accurate information and is about as =
valuable=20
as Zach Randolph's contract.
Lo and behold, the Web site Sports Media Analysis has undertaken the only task I can =
think of=20
that is more tedious than doing a mock draft: grading the performance of =
the=20
writers and media members who did mock drafts. The results were =
predictable, and=20
to be honest, fascinating.
Using a grading system that provided points for correct picks and =
weighting=20
for closely projecting where a player would be selected, Sports Media =
Analysis=20
determined the following:
Winners
Sports Illustrated=E2=80=99s Ian Thomsen claimed the overall top spot =
after ranking=20
4th in the correct pick portion of the analysis and topping the pick =
difference=20
analysis. Closely trailing Mr. Thomsen were Rick Bonnell of the =
Charlotte=20
Observer, Sam Smith of Sporting News, Jonathan Feigen of the Houston =
Chronicle=20
and Krista Jahnke of the Detroit Free Press. The Orlando =
Sentinel=E2=80=99s Tim Povtak,=20
MyNBADraft.com=E2=80=99s Todd Robinson, InsideHoops.com, the Chicago =
Sun-Times=E2=80=99 John=20
Jackson and the Boston Herald=E2=80=99s David Moore rounded out the top =
10. Although he=20
performed well overall, Mr. Feigen deserves some criticism here for =
completely=20
forgetting (I assume) about Eric Gordon. Not only did he not have Gordon =
going=20
in the Top 10, as almost every other mock draft did, he completely left =
him out=20
of the first round.
Mr. Thomsen=E2=80=99s win was fueled by his dominance in the Second =
10 picks of the=20
draft. He was the only sportswriter to correctly guess more than two of =
the=20
Second 10 picks =E2=80=93 Robin Lopez to the Suns at #15, Marreese =
Speights to the 76ers=20
at #16 and JJ Hickson to the Cavaliers =E2=80=93 and his picks in the =
Second 10 averaged=20
only 3.1 draft slots away from where they were actually drafted. No =
other=20
prognosticator had an average less than 5.0 during the Second 10. =
Additionally,=20
Mr. Thomsen=E2=80=99s overall average pick difference for the 1st round =
was 3.667, the=20
only average under 4.0. Finally, Mr. Thomsen finished in the top seven =
of every=20
single category, with only Mr. Bonnell joining him as a Top 10 finisher =
in every=20
category. Dominant indeed.
LOSERS
On one hand, I hate to highlight the people who did not perform =
particularly=20
well on the mock draft, but that is exactly why it is important that =
someone do=20
this analysis. At some point, we as readers have to trust our sources of =
information, and it only makes sense that we analyze them to find out =
who among=20
them is consistently full of it. Much to my own personal surprise, two =
of my=20
favorite NBA writers =E2=80=93 Chad Ford and John Hollinger =E2=80=93 =
were woefully bad on their=20
mock drafts.
It=E2=80=99s not a huge surprise that Mr. Hollinger was off but I had =
always presumed=20
that Mr. Ford would be at or near the top in an objective analysis such =
as this=20
considering the amount of coverage he gives the NBA Draft. Mr. Ford was=20
especially dreadful in the Second 10, in which he did not pick a single =
player=20
correctly and he averaged a second-worst 8.2 draft slots away per =
player. In=20
addition to picking two players in the Second 10 who were not drafted =
until the=20
2nd Round =E2=80=93 Mario Chalmers and DeAndre Jordan =E2=80=93 he =
slotted both Kosta Koufos and=20
Donte Greene towards the top of the Second 10.
In addition, =
the Web=20
site found, "Of the 12 newspaper writers who completed mock drafts only =
two =E2=80=93=20
the Arizona Republic=E2=80=99s Paul Coro and Mr. Jackson of the Chicago =
Sun-Times =E2=80=93=20
correctly picked their local teams=E2=80=99 1st round pick." This is =
interesting because=20
it makes me wonder if the rest of the writers were victims of =
misinformation and=20
smokescreens planted by the coaches and executives they cover.
The bit on Thomsen being the only mockster to correctly predict more =
than two=20
picks between Nos. 11-21 only validated my point about how silly it is =
to even=20
attempt a mock draft that goes much beyond the lottery selections.
I had five correct picks out of the 14 lottery selections, one fewer =
than=20
Sports Media's winner, Thomsen. Obviously, he would've blown me away =
with his=20
dominance in the second half of the first round -- and the fact that he =
had=20
Jason Thompson going 14th, only two spots off, proved that Ian was on =
this big=20
time.
But to further illustrate my point about how fruitless these mock =
drafts are,=20
the two readers who took me on in my mock draft challenge got seven and =
six=20
correct picks out of 14, respectively. Presumably, they were doing this =
off the=20
top of their heads, without the benefit -- or should I say, disadvantage =
-- of=20
talking with team executives and agents.
The analysts didn't count my mock draft in their calculations because =
I=20
didn't complete it. In my mind, that means that I should have won.
P.S. Thanks to Henry Abbott of TrueHoop for pointing me to the link. Hey, Abbott, how'd =
you do in=20
your mock draft?
![3D"ken](3D"http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/basketball/nba/blog/images/kenbe=)
![3Dgilbert1.jpg=20](3D"http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/basketball/nba/blog/gilbert1.jpg=)
![3Draptors.gif=20](3D"http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/basketball/nba/blog/raptors.gif"=)