For each player that has been scouted once, you will be given a single number associated with his (current) playing ability, though of course this forms the base for his future development. In addition you will know his best/suggested position.
If a player has been scouted twice, you will have another number indicating his potential. In addition, you will be given his box score from one game.
Many, perhaps most, players you will know nothing about.
It appears that the first number may be based on a player's best skills, and may not reflect the breadth of those skills. There are more 5's and 4's than 3's, 2's, and 1's. That is, it is definitely not a uniform distribution (20% of each), nor normal more 3's, fewer 2's or 1's. The first pass through, I simply place all the 5's at the top of my list, followed by all the 4's, and placing all 1's and 2's at the bottom of my list.
Because the average player is better than a 3, it may be desirable to place the unknowns ahead of the 3's. But there are likely a handful of other teams that know at least the first number, on any given player in the draft. So it may make sense to place your unknowns lower since they will have been picked over by the other teams, who will have taken more of the 4s and 5s, and left the 1s and 2s for you. But since your 3rd pick may come from these players, you may want to take a chance. That is, a 3 might be a better player than the average unknown that you will draft, but he is still a 3 who is unlikely to help your team, so why not take a chance on something totally unknown.
Potential was a new feature last season (not only for the draft, but to Buzzard Beater), but our first exposure was during the draft, where we could see a 2nd number (1 to 5) associated with potential for players that had been scouted twice Also added to the draft was the best position, and a box score from one game.
In previous seasons, you were given a 2nd grade (A+, A, A-, etc.). All 5's would have some form of an A, all 4's some form of a B, etc. You were told a player's best skill rather than given a box score. But this might mean that you knew a player's best skill was FT.
So before, you would simply put the 5 A+ ahead of the 5 A, 5 A-, and perhaps the 5 (grade unknown) somewhere in the middle. You might move a player with a suspect top skill like FT lower in the rankings.
Now you have to start with the 5's and weigh in the position, the potential, and the box score. I don't know whether the box score is synthesized based on a player's skills, or is a simulation based on a player's skills. If you look at the season stats for a player, you will see that it matches up pretty well with their skills. For example if a player is a dominant rebounder and mediocre shot, this will clearly be evident in his season long stats. But in any individual game it may not.
For example, my starting PG had one game where he was 1-11 FG, 1-9 3FG, but had 11 rebounds and 8 assists. Two games later, he was 12-20 FG, 9-15 3FG, with 3 rebounds and 3 assists. The difference is reflective of different offenses (the first game was look inside, the second motion). Some of the players had quite impressive box scores. Others had maybe 10 minutes 0-1 FG, and one TO and 1 PF.
Now that there is position, box score, and potential information, two different teams might well re-order their list differently, even if they had the same information about the same players, which they don't.
The first two seasons my top draft picks were guards (3 of my top 4 guards were draft picks). So last season, I did draft somewhat by position and my first pick was a PF. I was 14th overall, but he was my first choice. If you click on Draft Results, you will see that most teams get one of their highest choices, usually their 1st choice as their first pick.