GD's Big Board - 2020 Edition

[EvanZ]

That’s fair for the most part I guess, but it can’t hurt. It still accomplished the same damned thing, doesn’t it?

Well I think it hurts in the sense that it's a false sense of certainty. If I don't know, and I know I don't know, I don't want to mislead people into thinking I know. YOu know? haha

[getrichordie]

That’s fair for the most part I guess, but it can’t hurt. It still accomplished the same damned thing, doesn’t it?

Well I think it hurts in the sense that it's a false sense of certainty. If I don't know, and I know I don't know, I don't want to mislead people into thinking I know. YOu know? haha

A big board is your own personal perspective and valuations on the prospects in the draft. It’s supposed to guide you, no one else.

Who are we misleading? Who are we providing a false sense of certainty?

[The-Power]

I personally think that if you are seeing a clear separation in talent/potential/NBA projection from one group to the next, you should separate them into tiers.

Agreed. I see two ways of dealing with tiers.

One is to define them in certain ways as EvanZ did, in which case it probably doesn't make sense to use more than 5-7. Doing that, preferences and nuances may still mean that there can be order within tiers.

But even then, it would normally require to define the tiers more clearly and I don't see people doing that either for me most part (e.g. what is assessed – best outcome, optimistic outcome, median outcome? How is likelihood of ceiling factored in, how much does floor matter, how much things like portability especially for non-perfect outcomes? What about value over Rookie contract, and presence or supply of similar players/players who play similar roles, both in the draft and in FA? – the simple naming of tiers doesn't answer those, and other, questions).

Anyway, it also makes sense to use tiers as groupings of players in which the order is interchangeable to you, because you personally cannot really separate the players as far as ranking them as prospects in concerned. In this case, I don't see a problem using more tiers and also tiers for the lower-ranked prospects (although tiers would probably still be larger on average the further down it goes).

I don't think anyone on here is an authority on how to use tiers. Asking how tiers are used/understood in a given context? Fair enough. Telling other people to stop structuring their rankings in certain ways because you structure your rankings differently? Not so much.

[getrichordie]

I personally think that if you are seeing a clear separation in talent/potential/NBA projection from one group to the next, you should separate them into tiers.

Agreed. I see two ways of dealing with tiers.

One is to define them in certain ways as EvanZ did, in which case it probably doesn't make sense to use more than 5-7. Doing that, preferences and nuances may still mean that there can be order within tiers.

But it also makes sense to use tiers as groupings of players in which the order is interchangeable to you, because you personally cannot really separate the players as far as ranking them as prospects in concerned. In this case, I don't see a problem using more tiers and also tiers for the lower-ranked prospects (although tiers would probably still be larger on average the further down it goes).

I don't think anyone on here is an authority on how to use tiers. Asking how tiers are used/understood in a given context? Fair enough. Telling other people to stop structuring their rankings in certain ways because you structure your rankings differently? Not so much.

Do I need to go get my tier-police badge?

[EvanZ]

Historically the “value” curve for a draft is exponential. It’s very high near the top pick and decreases very rapidly. For this reason it just doesn’t make any sense to split the “long tail” in to so many groupings because historically there just isn’t much separation in value. That’s just math really. That’s the main “theory” behind doing a few tiers. But don’t let me stop you from having fun by all means.

[getrichordie]

Historically the “value” curve for a draft is exponential. It’s very high near the top pick and decreases very rapidly. For this reason it just doesn’t make any sense to split the “long tail” in to so many groupings because historically there just isn’t much separation in value. That’s just math really. That’s the main “theory” behind doing a few tiers. But don’t let me stop you from having fun by all means.

No one questioning the validity of what you are saying. No need to defend it. It just comes down to preference, really.

[No-Man]

You can do whatever you want, but it's wrong and basically anti every math rule that you can come up with, that's just objective facts

It's like picking a normal distribution to analyze log data, go ahead and do you, but you are gonna get non representative results

[The-Power]

You can do whatever you want, but it's wrong and basically anti every math rule that you can come up with, that's just objective facts

The concept of tiers is not inherently related to mathematical distribution. It is simply a means of ordering, period – feel free to check its etymology. For the way you use the concept of tiers, you actually are correct. But the fact that you use the concept of tiers differently does not render any other use of the concept of tiers inaccurate. It is not wrong, and what you are talking about is not an objective fact. Just stop it. You simply don't realize that you are probably talking about two entirely different approaches that you both happen to illustrate using ‘tiers’.

[No-Man]

You can do whatever you want, but it's wrong and basically anti every math rule that you can come up with, that's just objective facts

The concept of tiers is not inherently related to mathematical distribution. It is simply a means of ordering, period – feel free to check its etymology. For the way you use the concept of tiers, you actually are correct. But the fact that you use the concept of tiers differently does not render any other use of the concept of tiers inaccurate. It is not wrong, and what you are talking about is not an objective fact. Just stop it. You simply don't realize that you are probably talking about two entirely different approaches that you both happen to illustrate using ‘tiers’.

The concept isn't, the data is, and the tiers are supposed to fit your data which is by any means exponential, meaning that the top end is of greater value than the lower end, and that differences become less and less obvious as you go in depth

And yes, it does, you can call it whatever you want, but it's meaningless because it doesn't make any sense attached to this set of data, basically

And I don't believe in giving categories or concepts to each tier, that's personal, but the rest is obvious

[GimmeDat]

Jeez, talk about needless semantics.

Sure, you may conventionally attribute the concept of tiers to a pyramid-type system, and I don't disagree that the outcomes of of a draft generally skew towards smaller/higher tiers at the top and bigger tiers at the bottom. That is the general distribution of an average draft, of course.

But to say that there's a one fits all structure to using tiers is not correct. Tiers are, by definition, a level or grade within a hierarchy. Does a hierarchy conventionally appear in the same distribution you talk about? Sure. But that's got nothing to do with the definition.

Talking completely hypothetically, it's not impossible for a draft to have more players in a higher tier than a lower one. The more players you assess, the more likely your evaluations are to reflect the distribution you refer to, in the same way that if you were to combine drafts, the more drafts you combine, the more it would reflect what we would all consider a conventional distribution of outcomes.

But the thing you are neglecting to consider is I have not attributed any particular outcomes or values to each tier. I see some people making their boards, and they leave gaps in tiers, (e.g. I remember last draft some people had Zion tier 1, then no one in tier, then proceeded with tier 3, because they didn't believe anyone was good enough for tier 2), but doing it that way is assigning a certain value of outcome to that tier. I'm not doing that.

I'm simply using tiers in this board to delineate value of prospects, in my subjective opinion, within the scope of the players in this draft that I have assessed. I do that, because in my opinion, it provides a more nuanced board than providing a blanket lower tier with heaps of people in it, because I know that within that tier I would have a distinct order of preference. And of course, that's what the actual is order is there for, to an extent, I'm not saying each order is an absolute wash between those guys, but the gaps I'm using are to signify a more particular jump in favor that I wanted to highlight.

Yes, most 2nd round guys may not amount to anything, but some guys may have better chances to not amount to anything than others, and some guys may have slightly higher ceilings than others. It's those particulars that I'm highlighting. That's where the other point comes in - because I'm not attributing particular levels of outcome to particular tiers, the difference in each tier is not equal. Of course, the difference in opinion I have between (eg) Ball and Vassell is greater than say, Carey and Stewart. I think that should be a pretty obvious assumption.

I usually follow a more common pyramid of tier distribution. This time I decided to break them up like that. Whether you like that or not is up to you - but to say that is 'not how tiers work' or wrong is... wrong.

It shouldn't surprise me that the person who likes getting on his pseudo-intellectual high horse the most would start such a pointless argument about such a pointless topic, and with such typical rudeness.

You guys do you.

[getrichordie]

Spoiler:

Jeez, talk about needless semantics.

Sure, you may conventionally attribute the concept of tiers to a pyramid-type system, and I don't disagree that the outcomes of of a draft generally skew towards smaller/higher tiers at the top and bigger tiers at the bottom. That is the general distribution of an average draft, of course.

But to say that there's a one fits all structure to using tiers is not correct. Tiers are, by definition, a level or grade within a hierarchy. Does a hierarchy conventionally appear in the same distribution you talk about? Sure. But that's got nothing to do with the definition.

Talking completely hypothetically, it's not impossible for a draft to have more players in a higher tier than a lower one. The more players you assess, the more likely your evaluations are to reflect the distribution you refer to, in the same way that if you were to combine drafts, the more drafts you combine, the more it would reflect what we would all consider a conventional distribution of outcomes.

But the thing you are neglecting to consider is I have not attributed any particular outcomes or values to each tier. I see some people making their boards, and they leave gaps in tiers, (e.g. I remember last draft some people had Zion tier 1, then no one in tier, then proceeded with tier 3, because they didn't believe anyone was good enough for tier 2), but doing it that way is assigning a certain value of outcome to that tier. I'm not doing that.

I'm simply using tiers in this board to delineate value of prospects, in my subjective opinion, within the scope of the players in this draft that I have assessed. I do that, because in my opinion, it provides a more nuanced board than providing a blanket lower tier with heaps of people in it, because I know that within that tier I would have a distinct order of preference. And of course, that's what the actual is order is there for, to an extent, I'm not saying each order is an absolute wash between those guys, but the gaps I'm using are to signify a more particular jump in favor that I wanted to highlight.

Yes, most 2nd round guys may not amount to anything, but some guys may have better chances to not amount to anything than others, and some guys may have slightly higher ceilings than others. It's those particulars that I'm highlighting. That's where the other point comes in - because I'm not attributing particular levels of outcome to particular tiers, the difference in each tier is not equal. Of course, the difference in opinion I have between (eg) Ball and Vassell is greater than say, Carey and Stewart. I think that should be a pretty obvious assumption.

I usually follow a more common pyramid of tier distribution. This time I decided to break them up like that. Whether you like that or not is up to you - but to say that is 'not how tiers work' or wrong is... wrong.

It shouldn't surprise me that the person who likes getting on his pseudo-intellectual high horse the most would start such a pointless argument about such a pointless topic, and with such typical rudeness.

You guys do you.

[No-Man]

To pretend that you can actually delineate and break down the value of players that you rank so low is just naive and disingenuous, it's just a moot point, you can't that's why you are ranking them so low, it's inherent to their value and rank

You do you, and do whatever you want, but it's indeed wrong, it's the nature of the data

[GimmeDat]

To pretend that you can actually delineate and break down the value of players that you rank so low is just naive and disingenuous, it's just a moot point, you can't that's why you are ranking them so low, it's inherent to their value and rank

You do you, and do whatever you want, but it's indeed wrong, it's the nature of the data

Congrats on glossing over everything I posted and just continuing to regurgitate your rhetoric. Toxic af.

[EvanZ]

To pretend that you can actually delineate and break down the value of players that you rank so low is just naive and disingenuous, it's just a moot point, you can't that's why you are ranking them so low, it's inherent to their value and rank

You do you, and do whatever you want, but it's indeed wrong, it's the nature of the data

Congrats on glossing over everything I posted and just continuing to regurgitate your rhetoric. Toxic af.

Thought experiment. Go back to the 2009 Draft or 2013 or pick any draft you want and do your tiers now. Let me know how that looks. How many tiers would you have in a re-draft?

[GimmeDat]

To pretend that you can actually delineate and break down the value of players that you rank so low is just naive and disingenuous, it's just a moot point, you can't that's why you are ranking them so low, it's inherent to their value and rank

You do you, and do whatever you want, but it's indeed wrong, it's the nature of the data

Congrats on glossing over everything I posted and just continuing to regurgitate your rhetoric. Toxic af.

Thought experiment. Go back to the 2009 Draft or 2013 or pick any draft you want and do your tiers now. Let me know how that looks. How many tiers would you have in a re-draft?

I agree. That goes back to my original points though. I'm not saying these tiers have assigned value to them, or the difference in value between each tier is equal. Further down, they're being used to highlight minor differentiation, as opposed to significant level changes.

[No-Man]

We just disagree in one thing really, the fact that you can identify that level of minor differentiation down the talent pipe, I just think it's impossible

[GimmeDat]

We just disagree in one thing really, the fact that you can identify that level of minor differentiation down the talent pipe, I just think it's impossible

You can disagree with that, that's fine. All comes down to personal philosophy. But the thing I was primarily disagreeing with is that there is a right or wrong way to use tiers. You can't police that.

[GimmeDat]

1. LaMelo Ball

2. Anthony Edwards

3. Killian Hayes

4. Onyeka Okongwu

5. Devin Vassell

6. Deni Avdija

7. James Wiseman

8. Isaac Okoro

9. Obi Toppin

10. Tyrese Maxey

11. Tyrese Haliburton

12. Kira Lewis Jr

13. Cole Anthony

14. RJ Hampton

15. Patrick Williams

16. Aaron Nesmith

17. Josh Green

18. Desmond Bane

19. Aleksej Pokusevski

20. Leandro Bolmaro

21. Tyrell Terry

22. Jaden McDaniels

23. Precious Achuiwa

24. Theo Maledon

25. Tre Jones

26. Tyler Bey

27. Nico Mannion

28. Jalen Smith

29. Grant Riller

30. Killian Tillie



31. Xavier Tillman

33. Saddiq Bey

34. Zeke Nnaji

55. Abdoulaye N'doye

32. Jahmius Ramsey

35. Isaiah Joe

36. Devon Dotson

37. Malachi Flynn

38. Robert Woodard

39. Paul Reed

40. Rokas Jokubaitis

41. Saben Lee

42. Jordan Nwora

43. Cassius Stanley

44. Jay Scrubb

45. Daniel Oturu

46. Isaiah Stewart

47. CJ Elleby

48. Nate Hinton

49. Josh Hall

50. Aaron Henry

51. Vernon Carey

52. Joel Ayayi

53. Mason Jones

54. Cassius Winston

55. Paul Eboua

56. Elijah Hughes

57. Jared Butler

58. Ty-Shon Alexander

59. Jalen Harris

[getrichordie]

You are a disgusting man. /s

Tillie over Tillman? Bane over Hinton? Mannion over Flynn? Some wild valuations here.

[GimmeDat]

You are a disgusting man. /s

Tillie over Tillman? Bane over Hinton? Mannion over Flynn? Some wild valuations here.

I actually feel pretty comfortable with all of those ones - particularly Bane over Hinton (to clarify, I am really intrigued by Hinton, and he's probably subject to climb as I see more of him, but I doubt he ends up as high as 1st round for me, let alone over Bane).

I think you can make an argument for the other two, wouldn't knock you at all for that. Tillie is very likely to go lower than Tillman because of the injury history, but I like to bet on (good) guys with injury histories, and I think Tillie's shooting compared to Tillman's is significant enough that I'd like to bet on him. Literally a one spot difference there though, it's basically a wash. Could easily argue either/both over Jalen Smith whose higher still.

As for Mannion/Flynn, I like Flynn's skill-set more, I like Mannion's body a bit more. They're close, I've never been a big Mannion guy, but I think Flynn's upside is somewhat limited at the next level. I think both will be handy rotation guards.