Mocking mock drafts, and the fools who use them

The most fascinating development of the weekend actually came not from Bethpage Black, Wimbledon or South Africa, but from the New York Times, where writer Howard Beck tackled one of the great conundrums (conundra?) of our time.

Specifically, why, if the entire NBA and all of its employees and offshoots know that mock drafts are a bad idea based on layers of webs of lies so thick that even the most famous draft experts call them hate-worthy nonsense, do we still seem to want them?

Why not just wait for the real draft instead of the silly guessing game? (Getty Images)

That mock drafts are nonsense is clear, and in every sport at that, we already know. We are about to relearn this central truth this week, as the NBA Draft is Thursday and the NHL Draft starts the next day.

It is fascinating, though, to learn that, according to Beck's reportage, the most influential mock drafters regard their signature work as useless BS farms that people know are useless BS farms yet still seem to crave.

More than that, though, it is the craving that demands to be fed that is so surprising. It's as if, in a segment of sport in which five lies are always preferable to one truth, we as consumers demand that all-important and brand new sixth lie.

Well, the beast must be fed is all you can say, and it doesn't matter if the food is nutritious or empty calories. The theory must be that if you only seek out what is true and useful, you'll end up with a lot of dead air or a threadbare site.

Let's imagine the circuitous logic of the mock draft, though, just to see if we can get our hands on the phenomenon.

They're fun. Yes, but they're misleading. Yes, but they're fun. Yes, but they're mostly made-up nonsense by guys we hold up as experts so we can deride their expertise. Yes, but they're fun. Yes, but we quote them as though they have validity while knowing they don't. Yes, but they're fun. Yes, but we crush those whose mock drafts are actually as bad as the process that produces them. Yes, but they're fun. Even though we're misinformed, deceived and treated like fools.

Yes, but that's fun, too.

Does this process not strike you as bizarre? We are shown a tool that doesn't work by someone who isn't all that good at handling it because he has been given reams of false instructions, we watch enraptured as he uses the tool, and when the tool in fact doesn't work, we get mad at the guy who used it, and then rush out to get the next tool from the same manufacturer.

Suddenly, "Yes, but they're fun," seems like a pretty stupid justification.

Unless, of course, the whole idea is to set up experts on such an inexact science, let them fail at a rigged game and then let them have it with the smug superiority of someone who believes in the purity of the bourbon-soaked second-guess.

Maybe that's the beauty of mock drafts, then. They mock the people who make them and use them at the same time, and both parties are fine with being mocked. It's sort of like having two men stand in front of each other with signs over their groins that say "Kick Me." Half the time, it isn't going to be any fun at all, but after the kicking is ended, both guys say, "Well that was horrible, stupid and useless. Let's go put some ice on our offended regions, call each other names, and then we'll meet again in eight months and do it all again."

And people think Twitter is silly. Wow.

We say all this knowing that you know it, too. We also say it knowing that our local NBA team, the Golden State Warriors, haven't made a pick that mattered to their long-term health in decades. We have almost no skin in the game.

Still, facts are facts, and until in our technological fervor we can come up with a system of pre-draft hype that isn't based on information we all know ahead of time to be false and misguided, we can only do two things.

One, fill the airtime and bandwidth.

Two, keep plenty of ice on hand. Our pants are about to hurt, a lot.

Ray Ratto is a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle.