RealGM

This is not a commercial venture, I make no money on this and don't plan to, but I made it to help me gather content for my own research and podcast and thought others might appreciate it.

http://www.nbadraftintel.com

So I coded up this website, it does a few interesting things:

1: It aggregates all major mock drafts I could find to give an aggregate score

2: If you click into a player it shows their stats and combine measurements (and averages for combine measurements by position)

3: It has an overall combine history with everything on one page which is easier to use than nba's split up one

4: It has a draft history that splits out the draft by who you actually ended up with (post trades) so it is better than listed draft histories for seeing what your franchise did. It also can show who were the next picks after your pick and compares how good your guy was to those guys by a few metrics (you can pick which)

5: It has aggregated summaries from all the mocks about what they have written by about everyone

6: It has an AI research report on every player doing websearch and aggregating the information about each one individually using a skill I wrote to try and get useful, consistent information rather than generic AI summaries

7: Each player has a video section where I brought in different feeds of people who do scouting reports on the players via youtube API.

If you're trying to get a quick summary on all the guys the bulls might draft (or any other team), it's a neat quick way to kind of consolidate all draft info into one place pretty quickly.

Really nice website, I like the links and different ways it can be sorted, as well as the positional comparisons.

dougthonus wrote:1: It aggregates all major mock drafts I could find to give an aggregate score

For a suggestion, I noticed that it only goes #1 to #14 on Yahoo Sports when there are sixty listed names there, and also goes only #1 to #30 on ESPN when that also has sixty listed names.

Also, for The Ringer's mock, use this URL: https://www.theringer.com/nba-draft/2026/mock-draft?expert=danny-chau&view=skim

And for a potential addition, you can add the Bleacher Report's mock draft, the most recent one being today here: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/25262746-2026-nba-mock-draft

Caneman786 wrote:Really nice website, I like the links and different ways it can be sorted, as well as the positional comparisons.

dougthonus wrote:1: It aggregates all major mock drafts I could find to give an aggregate score

For a suggestion, I noticed that it only goes #1 to #14 on Yahoo Sports when there are sixty listed names there, and also goes only #1 to #30 on ESPN when that also has sixty listed names.

Also, for The Ringer's mock, use this URL: https://www.theringer.com/nba-draft/2026/mock-draft?expert=danny-chau&view=skim

And for a potential addition, you can add the Bleacher Report's mock draft, the most recent one being today here: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/25262746-2026-nba-mock-draft

I will look to make these updates. I couldn't previously find a good link to the BR mock, but I'll add it.

Is something off with the ringer as is? I think I was using that link but the peruse button so I could grab their descriptions for aggregated summaries. -- edit -- nevermind, probably the order of some players are different on their current mock, because they updated it since i last ingested data.

Thank you!

dougthonus wrote:Is something off with the ringer as is? I think I was using that link but the peruse button so I could grab their descriptions for aggregated summaries. -- edit -- nevermind, probably the order of some players are different on their current mock, because they updated it since i last ingested data.

The reason I mentioned that is because they have two similar lists, but they are slightly different (one being team-fit related), one is the mock draft and the one you are currently using is the "big board".

Caneman786 wrote:

dougthonus wrote:Is something off with the ringer as is? I think I was using that link but the peruse button so I could grab their descriptions for aggregated summaries. -- edit -- nevermind, probably the order of some players are different on their current mock, because they updated it since i last ingested data.

The reason I mentioned that is because they have two similar lists, but they are slightly different (one being team-fit related), one is the mock draft and the one you are currently using is the "big board".

Will double check I thought I was using the one you referenced (though the peruse link), but perhaps not

Are you live parsing all the mock sites at some interval?

What terrible group think this with everyone just media group thinking 1-5 effectively

CptCrunch wrote:Are you live parsing all the mock sites at some interval?

What terrible group think this with everyone just media group thinking 1-5 effectively

It's not automated, so first cut only has one version. I'm going to try to update it once a week or so. I will say that in my experience mock drafts have an incredible amount of group think. Most people just start with what someone else had then figure out how to move those people.

Is there a script you can run that automatically imports stats into your website? I've been trying to figure out how to do that for a while and I just cant. Yes, I know, that's probably a simple question to a complicated answer.

The site looks great, by the way.

BigGargamel wrote:Is there a script you can run that automatically imports stats into your website? I've been trying to figure out how to do that for a while and I just cant. Yes, I know, that's probably a simple question to a complicated answer.

The site looks great, by the way.

I have done lots of stats ingestion parsing in my life. I've actually built a lot of stats site. The main thing challenge I've run across these days is getting banned by the rate limiters / firewalls and working around that. There are a lot of approaches one may take to solve that problem, but I've generally not had an issue parsing the data. AI can more or less parse / model anything for you pretty easily.

dougthonus wrote:

CptCrunch wrote:Are you live parsing all the mock sites at some interval?

What terrible group think this with everyone just media group thinking 1-5 effectively

It's not automated, so first cut only has one version. I'm going to try to update it once a week or so. I will say that in my experience mock drafts have an incredible amount of group think. Most people just start with what someone else had then figure out how to move those people.

I might scrape your draft mock API response if you don't mind.

CptCrunch wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

CptCrunch wrote:Are you live parsing all the mock sites at some interval?

What terrible group think this with everyone just media group thinking 1-5 effectively

It's not automated, so first cut only has one version. I'm going to try to update it once a week or so. I will say that in my experience mock drafts have an incredible amount of group think. Most people just start with what someone else had then figure out how to move those people.

I might scrape your draft mock API response if you don't mind.

In the grand scheme of things it's probably safer to build something scraping the source data than my data, but given it is all effectively public information that I scraped from somewhere else, who am I to argue or know if you scrape mine vs the original source.

Interesting back and forth here

?s=46

azcatz11 wrote:Interesting back and forth here

Read on Twitter

?s=46

Fwiw, immediately pulled down any content from other users even though it was using YouTube API for videos which content creators can control themselves and followed aggregation best practices of linking back and posting snippets that have existed for decades. Just didn't want to bother arguing about it, but the goal posts just moved into anything with AI sucks.

Which is not an unpopular view but given I was overly compliant with his requests well beyond legal requirement and was polite and apologetic, I had expected a bit more from a journalist that should have a higher standard for nuance.

It’s extremely well put together for stuff I reference or revisit a lot, so I’ll most definitely be bookmarking and using it regularly.