Mock Draft 'Analysts' Power Rankings - Who did the best?

NBA Draft:Grading out the Mock Drafts...

The NBA Draft has come and gone. There are 30 more millionaires in America scattered amongst NBA cities, and there are countless others that hope to one day shake the hand of the NBA’s commissioner in the future. There were stories of dreams realized by players, hopes lifted by fans, and the promise of a new day withing NBA organizations. With that said, there were disappointments as well. There were disappointments of players who thought they would go higher, to a different team, in the first round versus the second, or in the second round versus not at all. There were also disappointments of NBA organizations who missed their guy, and fans who think they might have missed their’s as well.

As in every draft, this is to be expected. On Friday and Saturday those same experts that gave you their Mock Drafts in the weeks before the Draft, will now give you their draft day grades. They will tell which teams helped themselves, and which teams hurt themselves, based on who the teams were able to acquire. All of this is interesting discussion, as it is every year, and we all enjoy engaging in these debates. This year, we here at News from the Nosebleeds, decided to give out our own draft day grades, and rankings. Except we are not rating the NBA teams on how well they did, we are rating the analysts, on how well they did. In our latest edition of Analyze the Analyst - we tracked 10 of the most popular sports authorities, and pitted their results against what actually happened. In doing so, we were able to see, who was right, and who was wrong, and who we should believe next time. These are the results:

Mock Draft Power Rankings
Publication...Writer - Total Points

1. ESPN...Chad Ford - 1586
2. Real GM...Christopher Reina - 1549
3. NBC Sports...Rich Zuckerman - 1536
4. Inside Hoops...Jeff Lenchiner - 1529
5. CBS Sportsline...Gary Parrish - 1519
6. College Hoops Net...Shawn Siegel - 1514
7. Fox Sports...Jeff Goodman - 1487
8. Sports Blog Nation...Spots Blog Collaboration - 1472
9. Sporting News...Sean Deveney - 1467
10. Sports Illustrated...Chris Eckstrand - 1423

In grading out these results, a couple variables should be mentioned.

We used the latest mock drafts available online from the respective analysts. Some were last updated one day, two days, five days before. We tried to use the latest mock drafts in our analysis. ESPN's Chad Ford updated his mock draft from the Wednesday night before the draft, to the evening of the draft (a few hours prior) for the last time, and his was the latest.

Click on Mock Draft: Dates published...to view a list of when each Mock used was last updated.

CBS Sportsline was the only publication to get the Top Five Picks exactly correct in order, others had four, none had six. Also, while the other nine were published by one writer, Sports Blog Nation was a collection of bloggers representing 30 NBA teams, they predicted trades, no one else did.

Click on Mock Draft: Draft Board to see each Mock Draft in its entirety

Scoring is also an obvious variable. We used the First Round only. Those picks are the only guaranteed contracts in the NBA, so we made that the point of emphasis. We associated a score with each pick of the mock draft, based on how close the player was to being drafted at that spot. We tried not to penalize a mock draft that selected a player 31st, and he went 30th through our weighted multiplier.

Click on Mock Draft: Rating Formula to view the scoring formula

Lastly were trades. We did not factor trades from one team to another into the equation at all. For one, the Mock Drafts did not include possible trades, so we didn't either. And secondly, the Mock was a reflection of where the player would get drafted, so we rated the accuracy of that.

We would love to hear from you. Let us, at News From the Nosebleeds, know what you think about the results, analysts, rating formula, and more. Blog on Now, Post your response.

How Does Sports Illustrated's NFL Preview 2006 Look in Review?

Sports Illustrated NFL Preview 2007...How did SI do last year in 2006??? Not so good...

Sports Illustrated. The father and all-knowing source for sports information. They have published their NFL Preview Edition. Terrific right. Awesome. I can’t wait to read it so that I can turn my television off on Sunday, and just know what will happen. Because they are Sports Illustrated, they must be right - right? Well, kinda. In the latest edition of the crap shoot that is prognosticating the NFL, King Peter and his minions will research, review, and analyze. But do they know more than you, do they know more than me. Who’s analyzing the analysts? Are they going to publish how they did last year, in the pages preceding this year’s NFL Preview? Are they going to give any money back from the newsstand price they charged last year, if their NFL Preview was, in review, inaccurate? I don’t think they will, but since Sports Illustrated won’t tell you how they did last year, or refund your money, we wanted to let you know how they did before they tempted you to buy their latest collection of guesses.

Lets start with a riddle. What do the Carolina Panthers and the Denver Broncos have in common? You say, ‘two teams that were unable to qualify for the playoffs last season even as wildcards...’ I say, correct, but not the answer I was looking for. The Panthers and Broncos have in common the fact that they were Sports Illustrated’s preseason edition magazine pick to match up head to head in Super Bowl XLI. Hey Peyton, where they there? Carolina and Denver’s combined records were 17-15. Indy and Chicago’s, the two teams that actually played for the Super Bowl combined for a record were 25-7 in the regular season. Sports Illustrated picked the Carolina Panthers too win the Super Bowl and lay claim to Lombardi Trophy in ‘06. Indianapolis beat Chicago. Carolina finished the regular season 8-8.

Sports Illustrated correctly analyzed, after breaking down hours of film with Ron Jaworski, that the Indianapolis Colts, New England Patriots, Chicago Bears, New York Giants and Seattle Seahawks would qualify for the playoffs. Colts and Pats, my mother could have picked. Seattle was in the Super Bowl the year before. But still sometimes the previous loser of the Super Bowl falls apart and doesn’t make the playoffs the next year, so for the Bears, Giants, and Seahawks, We’ll give ‘em credit for those picks - sort of. There are 12 playoff teams however. They got five right in the 2006 NFL Draft Preview. 5 of 12, 41%. That is 41% accuracy rate and they did not pick either team to correctly advance to the Super Bowl. There are 32 teams, 12 get into the playoffs, 20 do not, 5 of 12. I don’t think that is so good - do you. So if they picked 7 teams to make the Playoffs, and those teams did not get in, who’d they pick you ask. I will tell you.

Besides prognosticating the Carolina Panthers (8-8) and the Denver Broncos (9-7) in the clash of mediocrity - a.k.a. - the ‘Super Bowl ‘06’, Sports Illustrated also selected the Pittsburgh Steelers (8-8), the Cincinnati Bengals (8-8), the Washington Redskins (5-11), the Atlanta Falcons (7-9), and the Jacksonville Jaguars (8-8) to make the 2006 NFL Playoffs.
The 7 teams that Sports Illustrated selected to make the playoffs in 2006 that did not make it, had a combined regular season record of 53-59, six games under .500.

The seven teams that they did not pick - the NY Jets (10-6), Baltimore Ravens (13-3), San Diego Chargers (14-2), Kansas City Chiefs (9-7), Philadelphia Eagles (9-7), Dallas Cowboys (9-7), and the New Orleans Saints (10-6) that actually made the playoffs had a combined record of 74-38. 36 games over .500. A difference of 42 games (Sports Illustrated -6, actuality +36) over .500. That is way off in my opinion.

Also, to add insult to injury Sports Illustrated’s preseason Coach of the Year in 2006 was Arizona’s own Dennis Green. The Arizona Cardinals finished 5-11, and they will have a new head coach tossing the red replay bean bag in 2007. And while Dennis Green was well aware of the fact that the ‘Bears were who they thought they were’ on a particular Monday night - it wasn’t enough to pull in that ‘Coach of the Year’ award that Sports Illustrated ‘thought he was.’

With all of this said, these are my thoughts and questions that I raise to you. How come, writers who are paid to deliver inside information, analysis, predictions, and stories are allowed to be this wrong. Peter King, and the NFL staff at Sports Illustrated had a job to do last year prior to publishing their NFL preseason magazine. They were to analyze the data, and make a prediction. They were wrong, quite wrong. If a manager of an investment portfolio were to be this wrong one year, you would not pay him to predict the stock market again next year. So why are we supposed to pay Sports Illustrated to predict the NFL again? And what about all those fans - say Redskins’ fans - who thought their team was going to be the best team since the undefeated Dolphins based on the reviews of SI and the like - tough year for them (5-11). What about Panthers fans - win the Super Bowl, how about 8-8.

Lucky for me, I am a Browns fan, I knew we’d stink, and at least SI got that right. But I want to hear from the fans. Do you ever wonder who is analyzing the analysts? Do you ever sit up in the nosebleeds watching your favorite team thinking... "I know more than that guy (insert talking head)" We are here to tell you, you probably do, and we’d rather hear analysis from you, the real News, News From the Nosebleeds. Oh and by the way, what do those talking heads say when their predictions are wrong? They say the aforementioned team ‘underachieved.’ Maybe you under achieved as an analyst, ever think of that?