[draftmangtParticipant]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2013/story/_/page/PerDiem-130624/ranking-prospects-warp

[GrandmamaParticipant]

Over the four days leading to the NBA draft, you’re going to see a lot of numbers, some of them more important than others when it comes to predicting how players in their teens and early 20s will ultimately perform in the NBA. The most meaningful might be a simple one — age.

No matter how you study the history of the draft, the results are clear: Younger players end up faring better than older ones. Even during their first seasons, younger rookies develop more compared to their college performance than older ones, a gap that grows as they continue to progress toward their peak.

Age isn’t the most important factor in projecting NBA success — how players have performed in the past is still more important — but because we’re comparing prospects at different stages of the development process, we can really only understand that performance in the context of age. That’s the fundamental truth on which my draft projections are built.

I start by translating a player’s college statistics to his NBA equivalents. That produces a per-minute rating, player win% (equivalent to PER), that projects how we can expect rookies to perform in the NBA next season. By adding age, I come up with a projection of how many Wins Above Replacement Player (WARP) prospects will produce over their first five years — the amount of time teams control a first-round pick between the four-year rookie contract and one year as a restricted free agent.

As with any statistical projection, the results are far from perfect. There’s too much uncertainty about how any individual will develop to tell the difference between prospects whose projections are decimal points apart. But larger differences can be meaningful indicators of over- or undervalued players.

For more details on the process, as well as past draft ratings, check out the companion piece on Tuesday. If you just want this year’s results, keep reading. I’ve ranked the NCAA players and a handful of international prospects among Chad Ford’s top 30, based on their WARP projections, as well as the top 10 players outside this group who look like second-round steals.

LIKELY FIRST-ROUND PICKS

1. NERLENS NOEL, C, KENTUCKY
Noel’s Projections | Age: 19
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Noel’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.488
3.6
1

Noel’s WARP projection is a little on the low side for a No. 1 pick and would have put him second behind Kentucky predecessor Anthony Davis in last year’s draft. Noel’s defensive potential is immense. In addition to the second-best translated block rate of anyone in the draft (only Jeff Withey rates better), Noel also generates a high number of steals for a post player. He joins three post players in my database with translated steal percentages of 2.0 or better: DeJuan Blair, Kenneth Faried and Greg Monroe. That’s important because steal rate tends to be an indicator of quickness that translates at the NBA level.

2. OTTO PORTER, SF, GEORGETOWN
Porter’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Porter’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.466
2.7
3

Given Noel’s injury, Porter might be the surest thing in this year’s draft. The Big East Player of the Year rates well across the board; his only statistical weakness (a category in which he’s in the bottom 25 percent of past players at his position entering the NBA) is usage rate. Note that Porter, despite playing two years at Georgetown, is younger than freshmen Anthony Bennett and Shabazz Muhammad.

3. KENTAVIOUS CALDWELL-POPE, SG, GEORGIA
Caldwell-Pope’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Caldwell-Pope’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.469
2.6
11

Caldwell-Pope rates atop a deep group of shooting guards, thanks in large part to his versatility. With good size for the position, Caldwell-Pope contributes on the glass and has an excellent steal rate. As a pro, Caldwell-Pope may be more efficient than he was as the first option on offense at Georgia.

4. CODY ZELLER, PF, INDIANA
Zeller’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Zeller’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.475
2.5
10

After a terrific freshman year, Zeller took a step backward last season; he benefits from research showing that performance early in college is more important. Zeller’s rebounding is a bit worrisome, but he figures to be an efficient scorer right away.

5. C.J. MCCOLLUM, PG, LEHIGH
McCollum’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
McCollum’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.496
2.5
9

Because McCollum was the Lehigh offense, he has the highest translated usage rate of any player in the top 30. McCollum was still reasonably efficient thanks to his accuracy at the line. And he’s an excellent rebounder for a guard who also racked up steals against lesser competition.

6. LUCAS NOGUEIRA, C, BRAZIL
Nogueria’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Nogueria’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.474
2.4
23

For European players who played in the Spanish ACB — the best domestic league — or the continental Euroleague and EuroCup competitions, the translation process is the same except it involves players going both to and from the NBA. “Bebe” put up solid stats playing against grown-ups in the ACB. He blocked shots more frequently than Serge Ibaka did in the same league and projects to make nearly 55 percent of his 2-point shots.

7. TREY BURKE, PG, MICHIGAN
Burke’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Burke’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.459
2.2
7

Burke rates as the top point guard available. One slight red flag: Burke is a poor rebounder, which tends to be an important indicator for point guards. But nobody in this draft operates better in the pick-and-roll, the foundation of modern NBA offenses.

8. ANTHONY BENNETT, PF, UNLV
Bennett’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Bennett’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.447
2.1
4

Bennett is the only player in the top 30 without any statistical weaknesses. If he can develop NBA 3-point range after shooting 37.5 percent on 3s at UNLV, Bennett will be the rare stretch 4 who also excels on the glass. But he’s as old as many sophomores, which hurts his rating slightly.

9. MICHAEL CARTER-WILLIAMS, PG, SYRACUSE
Carter-Williams’ Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Carter-Williams’ draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.473
2.0
7

Carter-Williams rates a hair behind Burke, and he has plenty of positives on his statistical résumé. Carter-Williams is ahead of Burke in terms of assist, steal and rebound rate. However, Carter-Williams is rated lower overall because he’s nearly twice as prone to turnovers and he’s a less accurate 2-point shooter.

10. SERGEY KARASEV, SG, RUSSIA
Karasev’s Projections | Age: 19
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Karasev’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.429
2.0
13

A productive player in the EuroCup at age 19, Karasev should be able to contribute immediately whenever he comes to the NBA. Karasev is an excellent outside shooter — he’s projected to shoot 37.9 percent beyond the arc — and a fine passer for a wing. Karasev is the last player with a WARP projection of 2.0 or better, which usually translates into an NBA starter.

11. STEVEN ADAMS, C, PITTSBURGH
Adams’ Projections | Age: 19
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Adams’ draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.429
1.9
12

Of the project college big men, Adams rates as the best prospect. After developing over the course of his lone season at Pitt, Adams figures to be able to contribute as a rebounder and shot-blocker off the bench right away.

12. GLEN RICE JR., SF, NBDL
Rice’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Rice’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.473
1.6
24

Rice’s projection is based on a combination of his performance at Georgia Tech in 2010-11 and 2011-12 and last year’s D-League translations. Rice was much more effective as a pro, and he’s already demonstrated NBA 3-point range.

13. SHANE LARKIN, PG, MIAMI
Larkin’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Larkin’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.433
1.6
18

In almost every respect, Larkin is statistically a lesser version of Burke. However, he is ahead in terms of steal rate, one of his greatest strengths as a prospect.

14. TONY MITCHELL, PF, NORTH TEXAS
Mitchell’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Mitchell’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.442
1.5
21

As a freshman, Mitchell rated as a top-five pick. As a sophomore, he rated as undraftable. His true ability lies somewhere in between, but his overall numbers suggest he might be slightly underrated.

15. ALLEN CRABBE, SG, CALIFORNIA
Crabbe’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Crabbe’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.426
1.1
25

Statistically, Crabbe comes out as the best shooter in the top 30. Though other players have better translated 3-point percentages, Crabbe was a volume 3-point shooter and accurate at the free throw line (84.7 percent). But he contributes little in terms of blocks or steals.

16. KELLY OLYNYK, PF, GONZAGA
Olynyk’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Olynyk’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.445
1.1
19

Olynyk’s shooting touch sets up everything he does offensively, inside and out. His translated true shooting percentage ranks third among the top 30, behind Zeller and Nogueira. Olynyk’s poor shot-blocking suggests he’ll be better as a power forward than a center.

17. VICTOR OLADIPO, SG, INDIANA
Oladipo’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Oladipo’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.443
1.1
2

More than any other prospect, Oladipo is hurt by the emphasis on previous years. Based just on his junior season, Oladipo’s WARP projection would crack the top 10. He was much less effective on offense his first two seasons, which has historically proved more indicative of NBA potential. Oladipo will be an impact defender either way, but he needs to contribute offensively to justify a top-five pick.

18. BEN MCLEMORE, SG, KANSAS
McLemore’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
McLemore’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.404
1.1
6

McLemore’s statistical profile reflects the conventional wisdom that he was too passive at Kansas. His translated usage rate (17.4 percent) is low for a top-10 pick, especially a shooting guard. Of greater concern is how rarely McLemore got to the foul line. And for a player who rarely created his own shot, he was surprisingly prone to turnovers. As a result, McLemore’s upside appears overstated.

19. REGGIE BULLOCK, SG, NORTH CAROLINA
Bullock’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Bullock’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.443
1.0
23

Another late bloomer, Bullock played his best basketball as a junior, even when adjusted for age. As a dangerous 3-point shooter, he should be useful as a role player.

20. ISAIAH CANAAN, PG, MURRAY STATE
Canaan’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Canaan’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.430
0.8
29

Canaan rated much better as a junior than during his senior year, when he took on a larger role offensively. But playing with more talented teammates in the pros may help him get back to that level. However, Canaan’s translated 41.6 percent 2-point shooting is worrisome.

21. JAMAAL FRANKLIN, SG, SAN DIEGO STATE
Franklin’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Franklin’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.424
0.7
20

Franklin’s athleticism manifests itself in excellent rebounding for a small forward, let alone a 2-guard. But Franklin will have to improve his 3-point shooting and cut down on his turnovers to avoid being an offensive liability.

22. TIM HARDAWAY JR., SG, MICHIGAN
Hardaway’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Hardaway’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.405
0.6
28

A volume scorer in training, Hardaway figures to have an above-average usage rate while scoring inefficiently both inside and outside the arc.

23. ALEX LEN, C, MARYLAND
Len’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Len’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.366
0.3
5

If Len indeed goes No. 1 — or anywhere in the top 10 — it will be on the strength of scouting and not his performance. Len was ineffective in two years at Maryland, and while that’s partly attributable to the system in which he played, Len has no such excuses for his poor rebounding. His low translated steal rate is also an enormous red flag — no player in my database has ever come up with steals so infrequently. Granted, DeAndre Jordan and Ryan Anderson have been able to overcome similarly low steal rates, but Hasheem Thabeet has not.

24. GORGUI DIENG, C, LOUISVILLE
Dieng’s Projections | Age: 23
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Dieng’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.435
0.2
27

The oldest player in the top 30, Dieng might have more upside than his age indicates because he picked up the game so late. At worst, Dieng will be an excellent defender, which would justify taking him in the 20s.

25. TONY SNELL, SF, NEW MEXICO
Snell’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Snell’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.379
-0.2
30

With his long arms, Snell looks the part of a defensive stopper, but he compiled few defensive stats. He rarely comes up with steals and was a nonfactor on the glass at New Mexico.

26. MASON PLUMLEE, C, DUKE
Plumlee’s Projections | Age: 23
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Plumlee’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.407
-0.4
22

The coveted athleticism that will make Plumlee a first-round pick is nowhere to be found in his numbers. Even after a breakout senior year, his translated rebound, steal and block rates are merely average for a rookie post.

27. SHABAZZ MUHAMMAD, SF, UCLA
Muhammad’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Muhammad’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.335
-0.7
17

Since I covered Muhammad’s weaknesses during the season, his projection has only gotten worse. Now, Muhammad and Plumlee are the lone top-30 players projected to rate worse than a replacement-level player — the type of free agent available for the minimum. Among past players with subreplacement projections, about one-sixth have ended up actually performing better than replacement in the NBA.

NO PROJECTIONS: Antetokounmpo, Schroeder and Ledo
Three top-30 players are without statistical projections. Giannis Antetokounmpo and Dennis Schroeder played only in domestic leagues that rarely send players to the NBA, while Ricardo Ledo spent his only season at Providence ineligible and thus has no NCAA stats.

SECOND-ROUND STEALS

1. ANDRE ROBERSON, SF, COLORADO
Roberson’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Roberson’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.497
2.6
39

Roberson fits a second-round stereotype — an undersized power forward with big-time athleticism. He struggled last season trying to play more on the perimeter, but has excelled defensively and on the glass against bigger players. Consider Roberson a poor man’s Kenneth Faried.

2. D.J. COOPER, PG, OHIO
Cooper’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Cooper’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.504
2.3
59

Cooper, who led Ohio to the Sweet 16 in 2012, has the best translated assist rate in the draft and racked up steals in the MAC. Scouts are probably rightfully concerned about Cooper’s inability to finish — his translated 2-point percentage is below 40 percent.

3. NATE WOLTERS, PG, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE
Wolters’ Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Wolters’ draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.492
2.2
36

A crafty ball handler with good size for the point, Wolters rarely turns the ball over and excelled at setting up shooters in a spread offense. Along with Bennett, Wolters is the other prospect without any statistical weaknesses for his position. His translations suggest he could be an effective backup next season.

4. PIERRE JACKSON, PG, BAYLOR
Jackson’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Jackson’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.482
2.1
35

Jackson was the primary creator at Baylor last season, posting an above-average translated usage rate as well as an elite steal rate. He’s also a dangerous outside shooter who could serve as instant offense from the bench, similar to the smaller Earl Boykins.

5. ARSALAN KAZEMI, PF, OREGON
Kazemi’s Projections | Age: 23
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Kazemi’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.510
2.1
56

After excelling at Rice, Kazemi demonstrated last season he could do the same thing against better competition. He’s an outstanding rebounder who uses his quickness to come up with steals against bigger opponents.

6. RYAN BROEKHOFF, SF, VALPARAISO
Broekoff’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Broekhoff’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.497
2.0
74

A deep sleeper who only recently appeared on Ford’s top 100, Broekhoff was a versatile contributor for the Horizon League champs. He has 3-point range and is a good passer for a wing, but scouts will question the strength of competition he faced.

7. KHALIF WYATT, SG, TEMPLE
Wyatt’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Wyatt’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.474
1.6
78

Wyatt’s awkward game hasn’t won many fans among NBA scouts, but his translations suggest he’ll be a capable scorer with the ability to create offense for his teammates as a shooting guard.

8. MIKE MUSCALA, C, BUCKNELL
Muscala’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Muscala’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.460
1.5
33

Muscala’s combination of size and shooting touch could make him an effective pick-and-pop big man.

9. MARKO TODOROVIC, PF, SERBIA
Todorovic’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Todorovic’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.442
1.5
63

Todorovic more than held his own in the Euroleague last season and should be a high-percentage shooter with the ability to step out beyond the 3-point line at times.

10. GRANT JERRETT, PF, ARIZONA
Jerrett’s Projections | Age: 19
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Jerrett’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.415
1.5
38

Though Jerrett unexpectedly entered the draft after a disappointing freshman season, his translations show promise. In particular, they suggest he has to be a more accurate 2-point shooter than he was in his time at Arizona (41.3 percent on 75 attempts). If he is, Jerrett could prove a stretch 4 (he shot 40.5 percent on 3s) with uncommon athleticism for the position.

FULL DRAFT BOARD
Ford’s top 100, ranked by projected WARP

Full WARP Projections
Rank Name Pos From Win% WARPp
1 Nerlens Noel C Kentucky .488 3.6
3 Otto Porter SF Georgetown .466 2.7
39 Andre Roberson SF Colorado .497 2.6
11 Kentavious Caldwell-Pope SG Georgia .469 2.6
10 Cody Zeller PF Indiana .475 2.5
9 C.J. McCollum SG Lehigh .496 2.5
14 Lucas Nogueira C Estudiantes .474 2.4
59 D.J. Cooper PG Ohio .504 2.3
36 Nate Wolters PG South Dakota St. .492 2.2
8 Trey Burke PG Michigan .459 2.2
35 Pierre Jackson PG Baylor .482 2.1
56 Arsalan Kazemi PF Oregon .510 2.1
4 Anthony Bennett PF UNLV .447 2.1
7 Michael Carter-Williams PG Syracuse .473 2.0
13 Sergey Karasev SF Triumph .429 2.0
74 Ryan Broekhoff SF Valparaiso .497 2.0
12 Steven Adams C Pittsburgh .429 1.9
78 Khalif Wyatt SG Temple .474 1.6
24 Glen Rice Jr. SF Rio Grande Valley .473 1.6
18 Shane Larkin PG Miami (FL) .433 1.6
33 Mike Muscala C Bucknell .460 1.5
63 Marko Todorovic PF FC Barcelona .442 1.5
38 Grant Jerrett PF Arizona .415 1.5
21 Tony Mitchell SF North Texas .442 1.5
75 Robert Covington SF Tennessee St. .467 1.4
34 Alex Abrines SG FC Barcelona .407 1.4
48 Phil Pressey PG Missouri .454 1.2
91 Will Cherry PG Montana .453 1.2
67 Bojan Dubljevic PF Valencia .438 1.2
25 Allen Crabbe SG California .426 1.1
44 Ray McCallum PG Detroit .444 1.1
53 James Southerland SF Syracuse .466 1.1
55 Ryan Kelly PF Duke .446 1.1
19 Kelly Olynyk PF Gonzaga .445 1.1
2 Victor Oladipo SG Indiana .443 1.1
6 Ben McLemore SG Kansas .404 1.1
58 D.J. Stephens SF Memphis .449 1.0
23 Reggie Bullock SF North Carolina .443 1.0
32 Jeff Withey C Kansas .465 1.0
45 B.J. Young PG Arkansas .393 0.9
87 Matthew Dellavedova PG Saint Mary’s .450 0.9
29 Isaiah Canaan PG Murray St. .430 0.8
20 Jamaal Franklin SG San Diego St. .424 0.7
97 Ian Clark SG Belmont .431 0.7
94 Joffrey Lauvergne PF Partizan .416 0.6
28 Tim Hardaway Jr. SG Michigan .405 0.6
52 Deshaun Thomas SF Ohio St. .417 0.6
65 Raul Neto PG Lagun Aro .395 0.5
57 James Ennis SF Long Beach St. .434 0.4
68 Seth Curry SG Duke .430 0.4
50 Trevor Mbakwe PF Minnesota .463 0.4
40 Erick Green PG Virginia Tech .413 0.4
5 Alex Len C Maryland .366 0.3
90 Brandon Davies PF Brigham Young .406 0.3
70 Brandon Paul SG Illinois .411 0.3
83 Laurence Bowers SF Missouri .433 0.3
27 Gorgui Dieng C Louisville .435 0.2
49 Myck Kabongo PG Texas .389 0.1
88 C.J. Aiken SF Saint Joseph’s .413 0.1
54 Richard Howell PF North Carolina St. .413 0.1
62 Erik Murphy PF Florida .409 0.0
79 Solomon Hill SF Arizona .399 0.0
76 Peyton Siva PG Louisville .405 -0.1
96 Oleksandr Lypovyy SF BC Donetsk .382 -0.1
30 Tony Snell SF New Mexico .379 -0.2
99 Christian Watford SF Indiana .387 -0.2
98 Rotnei Clarke PG Butler .425 -0.3
64 Adonis Thomas PF Memphis .345 -0.3
42 Lorenzo Brown PG North Carolina St. .397 -0.3
37 Archie Goodwin SG Kentucky .312 -0.3
80 Rodney Williams SF Minnesota .379 -0.4
77 Will Clyburn SG Iowa St. .403 -0.4
22 Mason Plumlee PF Duke .407 -0.4
81 Ed Daniel PF Murray St. .401 -0.4
51 Nemanja Nedovic SG Lietuvos Rytas .376 -0.4
84 Zeke Marshall C Akron .387 -0.4
41 C.J. Leslie PF North Carolina St. .373 -0.5
85 Ramon Galloway PG La Salle .380 -0.5
17 Shabazz Muhammad SF UCLA .335 -0.7
100 Elijah Johnson PG Kansas .380 -0.8
82 Elias Harris SF Gonzaga .395 -1.0
95 Travis Releford SG Kansas .381 -1.0
86 Jamelle Hagins PF Delaware .363 -1.1
71 Vander Blue SG Marquette .323 -1.1
69 Augusto Lima PF Malaga .341 -1.1
60 Carrick Felix SF Arizona St. .361 -1.2
89 Romero Osby PF Oklahoma .367 -1.2
43 Jackie Carmichael PF Illinois St. .364 -1.5
73 DeWayne Dedmon C USC .370 -1.5
47 Colton Iverson C Colorado St. .359 -1.8
66 Kenny Kadji PF Miami (FL) .380 -1.9
72 Michael Snaer SG Florida St. .330 -2.5
93 Amath M’Baye SF Oklahoma .299 -3.

[GrandmamaParticipant]

Over the four days leading to the NBA draft, you’re going to see a lot of numbers, some of them more important than others when it comes to predicting how players in their teens and early 20s will ultimately perform in the NBA. The most meaningful might be a simple one — age.

No matter how you study the history of the draft, the results are clear: Younger players end up faring better than older ones. Even during their first seasons, younger rookies develop more compared to their college performance than older ones, a gap that grows as they continue to progress toward their peak.

Age isn’t the most important factor in projecting NBA success — how players have performed in the past is still more important — but because we’re comparing prospects at different stages of the development process, we can really only understand that performance in the context of age. That’s the fundamental truth on which my draft projections are built.

I start by translating a player’s college statistics to his NBA equivalents. That produces a per-minute rating, player win% (equivalent to PER), that projects how we can expect rookies to perform in the NBA next season. By adding age, I come up with a projection of how many Wins Above Replacement Player (WARP) prospects will produce over their first five years — the amount of time teams control a first-round pick between the four-year rookie contract and one year as a restricted free agent.

As with any statistical projection, the results are far from perfect. There’s too much uncertainty about how any individual will develop to tell the difference between prospects whose projections are decimal points apart. But larger differences can be meaningful indicators of over- or undervalued players.

For more details on the process, as well as past draft ratings, check out the companion piece on Tuesday. If you just want this year’s results, keep reading. I’ve ranked the NCAA players and a handful of international prospects among Chad Ford’s top 30, based on their WARP projections, as well as the top 10 players outside this group who look like second-round steals.

LIKELY FIRST-ROUND PICKS

1. NERLENS NOEL, C, KENTUCKY
Noel’s Projections | Age: 19
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Noel’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.488
3.6
1

Noel’s WARP projection is a little on the low side for a No. 1 pick and would have put him second behind Kentucky predecessor Anthony Davis in last year’s draft. Noel’s defensive potential is immense. In addition to the second-best translated block rate of anyone in the draft (only Jeff Withey rates better), Noel also generates a high number of steals for a post player. He joins three post players in my database with translated steal percentages of 2.0 or better: DeJuan Blair, Kenneth Faried and Greg Monroe. That’s important because steal rate tends to be an indicator of quickness that translates at the NBA level.

2. OTTO PORTER, SF, GEORGETOWN
Porter’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Porter’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.466
2.7
3

Given Noel’s injury, Porter might be the surest thing in this year’s draft. The Big East Player of the Year rates well across the board; his only statistical weakness (a category in which he’s in the bottom 25 percent of past players at his position entering the NBA) is usage rate. Note that Porter, despite playing two years at Georgetown, is younger than freshmen Anthony Bennett and Shabazz Muhammad.

3. KENTAVIOUS CALDWELL-POPE, SG, GEORGIA
Caldwell-Pope’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Caldwell-Pope’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.469
2.6
11

Caldwell-Pope rates atop a deep group of shooting guards, thanks in large part to his versatility. With good size for the position, Caldwell-Pope contributes on the glass and has an excellent steal rate. As a pro, Caldwell-Pope may be more efficient than he was as the first option on offense at Georgia.

4. CODY ZELLER, PF, INDIANA
Zeller’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Zeller’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.475
2.5
10

After a terrific freshman year, Zeller took a step backward last season; he benefits from research showing that performance early in college is more important. Zeller’s rebounding is a bit worrisome, but he figures to be an efficient scorer right away.

5. C.J. MCCOLLUM, PG, LEHIGH
McCollum’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
McCollum’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.496
2.5
9

Because McCollum was the Lehigh offense, he has the highest translated usage rate of any player in the top 30. McCollum was still reasonably efficient thanks to his accuracy at the line. And he’s an excellent rebounder for a guard who also racked up steals against lesser competition.

6. LUCAS NOGUEIRA, C, BRAZIL
Nogueria’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Nogueria’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.474
2.4
23

For European players who played in the Spanish ACB — the best domestic league — or the continental Euroleague and EuroCup competitions, the translation process is the same except it involves players going both to and from the NBA. “Bebe” put up solid stats playing against grown-ups in the ACB. He blocked shots more frequently than Serge Ibaka did in the same league and projects to make nearly 55 percent of his 2-point shots.

7. TREY BURKE, PG, MICHIGAN
Burke’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Burke’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.459
2.2
7

Burke rates as the top point guard available. One slight red flag: Burke is a poor rebounder, which tends to be an important indicator for point guards. But nobody in this draft operates better in the pick-and-roll, the foundation of modern NBA offenses.

8. ANTHONY BENNETT, PF, UNLV
Bennett’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Bennett’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.447
2.1
4

Bennett is the only player in the top 30 without any statistical weaknesses. If he can develop NBA 3-point range after shooting 37.5 percent on 3s at UNLV, Bennett will be the rare stretch 4 who also excels on the glass. But he’s as old as many sophomores, which hurts his rating slightly.

9. MICHAEL CARTER-WILLIAMS, PG, SYRACUSE
Carter-Williams’ Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Carter-Williams’ draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.473
2.0
7

Carter-Williams rates a hair behind Burke, and he has plenty of positives on his statistical résumé. Carter-Williams is ahead of Burke in terms of assist, steal and rebound rate. However, Carter-Williams is rated lower overall because he’s nearly twice as prone to turnovers and he’s a less accurate 2-point shooter.

10. SERGEY KARASEV, SG, RUSSIA
Karasev’s Projections | Age: 19
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Karasev’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.429
2.0
13

A productive player in the EuroCup at age 19, Karasev should be able to contribute immediately whenever he comes to the NBA. Karasev is an excellent outside shooter — he’s projected to shoot 37.9 percent beyond the arc — and a fine passer for a wing. Karasev is the last player with a WARP projection of 2.0 or better, which usually translates into an NBA starter.

11. STEVEN ADAMS, C, PITTSBURGH
Adams’ Projections | Age: 19
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Adams’ draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.429
1.9
12

Of the project college big men, Adams rates as the best prospect. After developing over the course of his lone season at Pitt, Adams figures to be able to contribute as a rebounder and shot-blocker off the bench right away.

12. GLEN RICE JR., SF, NBDL
Rice’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Rice’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.473
1.6
24

Rice’s projection is based on a combination of his performance at Georgia Tech in 2010-11 and 2011-12 and last year’s D-League translations. Rice was much more effective as a pro, and he’s already demonstrated NBA 3-point range.

13. SHANE LARKIN, PG, MIAMI
Larkin’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Larkin’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.433
1.6
18

In almost every respect, Larkin is statistically a lesser version of Burke. However, he is ahead in terms of steal rate, one of his greatest strengths as a prospect.

14. TONY MITCHELL, PF, NORTH TEXAS
Mitchell’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Mitchell’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.442
1.5
21

As a freshman, Mitchell rated as a top-five pick. As a sophomore, he rated as undraftable. His true ability lies somewhere in between, but his overall numbers suggest he might be slightly underrated.

15. ALLEN CRABBE, SG, CALIFORNIA
Crabbe’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Crabbe’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.426
1.1
25

Statistically, Crabbe comes out as the best shooter in the top 30. Though other players have better translated 3-point percentages, Crabbe was a volume 3-point shooter and accurate at the free throw line (84.7 percent). But he contributes little in terms of blocks or steals.

16. KELLY OLYNYK, PF, GONZAGA
Olynyk’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Olynyk’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.445
1.1
19

Olynyk’s shooting touch sets up everything he does offensively, inside and out. His translated true shooting percentage ranks third among the top 30, behind Zeller and Nogueira. Olynyk’s poor shot-blocking suggests he’ll be better as a power forward than a center.

17. VICTOR OLADIPO, SG, INDIANA
Oladipo’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Oladipo’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.443
1.1
2

More than any other prospect, Oladipo is hurt by the emphasis on previous years. Based just on his junior season, Oladipo’s WARP projection would crack the top 10. He was much less effective on offense his first two seasons, which has historically proved more indicative of NBA potential. Oladipo will be an impact defender either way, but he needs to contribute offensively to justify a top-five pick.

18. BEN MCLEMORE, SG, KANSAS
McLemore’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
McLemore’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.404
1.1
6

McLemore’s statistical profile reflects the conventional wisdom that he was too passive at Kansas. His translated usage rate (17.4 percent) is low for a top-10 pick, especially a shooting guard. Of greater concern is how rarely McLemore got to the foul line. And for a player who rarely created his own shot, he was surprisingly prone to turnovers. As a result, McLemore’s upside appears overstated.

19. REGGIE BULLOCK, SG, NORTH CAROLINA
Bullock’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Bullock’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.443
1.0
23

Another late bloomer, Bullock played his best basketball as a junior, even when adjusted for age. As a dangerous 3-point shooter, he should be useful as a role player.

20. ISAIAH CANAAN, PG, MURRAY STATE
Canaan’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Canaan’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.430
0.8
29

Canaan rated much better as a junior than during his senior year, when he took on a larger role offensively. But playing with more talented teammates in the pros may help him get back to that level. However, Canaan’s translated 41.6 percent 2-point shooting is worrisome.

21. JAMAAL FRANKLIN, SG, SAN DIEGO STATE
Franklin’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Franklin’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.424
0.7
20

Franklin’s athleticism manifests itself in excellent rebounding for a small forward, let alone a 2-guard. But Franklin will have to improve his 3-point shooting and cut down on his turnovers to avoid being an offensive liability.

22. TIM HARDAWAY JR., SG, MICHIGAN
Hardaway’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Hardaway’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.405
0.6
28

A volume scorer in training, Hardaway figures to have an above-average usage rate while scoring inefficiently both inside and outside the arc.

23. ALEX LEN, C, MARYLAND
Len’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Len’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.366
0.3
5

If Len indeed goes No. 1 — or anywhere in the top 10 — it will be on the strength of scouting and not his performance. Len was ineffective in two years at Maryland, and while that’s partly attributable to the system in which he played, Len has no such excuses for his poor rebounding. His low translated steal rate is also an enormous red flag — no player in my database has ever come up with steals so infrequently. Granted, DeAndre Jordan and Ryan Anderson have been able to overcome similarly low steal rates, but Hasheem Thabeet has not.

24. GORGUI DIENG, C, LOUISVILLE
Dieng’s Projections | Age: 23
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Dieng’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.435
0.2
27

The oldest player in the top 30, Dieng might have more upside than his age indicates because he picked up the game so late. At worst, Dieng will be an excellent defender, which would justify taking him in the 20s.

25. TONY SNELL, SF, NEW MEXICO
Snell’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Snell’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.379
-0.2
30

With his long arms, Snell looks the part of a defensive stopper, but he compiled few defensive stats. He rarely comes up with steals and was a nonfactor on the glass at New Mexico.

26. MASON PLUMLEE, C, DUKE
Plumlee’s Projections | Age: 23
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Plumlee’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.407
-0.4
22

The coveted athleticism that will make Plumlee a first-round pick is nowhere to be found in his numbers. Even after a breakout senior year, his translated rebound, steal and block rates are merely average for a rookie post.

27. SHABAZZ MUHAMMAD, SF, UCLA
Muhammad’s Projections | Age: 20
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Muhammad’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.335
-0.7
17

Since I covered Muhammad’s weaknesses during the season, his projection has only gotten worse. Now, Muhammad and Plumlee are the lone top-30 players projected to rate worse than a replacement-level player — the type of free agent available for the minimum. Among past players with subreplacement projections, about one-sixth have ended up actually performing better than replacement in the NBA.

NO PROJECTIONS: Antetokounmpo, Schroeder and Ledo
Three top-30 players are without statistical projections. Giannis Antetokounmpo and Dennis Schroeder played only in domestic leagues that rarely send players to the NBA, while Ricardo Ledo spent his only season at Providence ineligible and thus has no NCAA stats.

SECOND-ROUND STEALS

1. ANDRE ROBERSON, SF, COLORADO
Roberson’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Roberson’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.497
2.6
39

Roberson fits a second-round stereotype — an undersized power forward with big-time athleticism. He struggled last season trying to play more on the perimeter, but has excelled defensively and on the glass against bigger players. Consider Roberson a poor man’s Kenneth Faried.

2. D.J. COOPER, PG, OHIO
Cooper’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Cooper’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.504
2.3
59

Cooper, who led Ohio to the Sweet 16 in 2012, has the best translated assist rate in the draft and racked up steals in the MAC. Scouts are probably rightfully concerned about Cooper’s inability to finish — his translated 2-point percentage is below 40 percent.

3. NATE WOLTERS, PG, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE
Wolters’ Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Wolters’ draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.492
2.2
36

A crafty ball handler with good size for the point, Wolters rarely turns the ball over and excelled at setting up shooters in a spread offense. Along with Bennett, Wolters is the other prospect without any statistical weaknesses for his position. His translations suggest he could be an effective backup next season.

4. PIERRE JACKSON, PG, BAYLOR
Jackson’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Jackson’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.482
2.1
35

Jackson was the primary creator at Baylor last season, posting an above-average translated usage rate as well as an elite steal rate. He’s also a dangerous outside shooter who could serve as instant offense from the bench, similar to the smaller Earl Boykins.

5. ARSALAN KAZEMI, PF, OREGON
Kazemi’s Projections | Age: 23
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Kazemi’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.510
2.1
56

After excelling at Rice, Kazemi demonstrated last season he could do the same thing against better competition. He’s an outstanding rebounder who uses his quickness to come up with steals against bigger opponents.

6. RYAN BROEKHOFF, SF, VALPARAISO
Broekoff’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Broekhoff’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.497
2.0
74

A deep sleeper who only recently appeared on Ford’s top 100, Broekhoff was a versatile contributor for the Horizon League champs. He has 3-point range and is a good passer for a wing, but scouts will question the strength of competition he faced.

7. KHALIF WYATT, SG, TEMPLE
Wyatt’s Projections | Age: 22
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Wyatt’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.474
1.6
78

Wyatt’s awkward game hasn’t won many fans among NBA scouts, but his translations suggest he’ll be a capable scorer with the ability to create offense for his teammates as a shooting guard.

8. MIKE MUSCALA, C, BUCKNELL
Muscala’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Muscala’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.460
1.5
33

Muscala’s combination of size and shooting touch could make him an effective pick-and-pop big man.

9. MARKO TODOROVIC, PF, SERBIA
Todorovic’s Projections | Age: 21
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Todorovic’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.442
1.5
63

Todorovic more than held his own in the Euroleague last season and should be a high-percentage shooter with the ability to step out beyond the 3-point line at times.

10. GRANT JERRETT, PF, ARIZONA
Jerrett’s Projections | Age: 19
WIN %
WARP
FORD’S RANK
Jerrett’s draft profile | Top 100 prospects
.415
1.5
38

Though Jerrett unexpectedly entered the draft after a disappointing freshman season, his translations show promise. In particular, they suggest he has to be a more accurate 2-point shooter than he was in his time at Arizona (41.3 percent on 75 attempts). If he is, Jerrett could prove a stretch 4 (he shot 40.5 percent on 3s) with uncommon athleticism for the position.

FULL DRAFT BOARD
Ford’s top 100, ranked by projected WARP

Full WARP Projections
Rank Name Pos From Win% WARPp
1 Nerlens Noel C Kentucky .488 3.6
3 Otto Porter SF Georgetown .466 2.7
39 Andre Roberson SF Colorado .497 2.6
11 Kentavious Caldwell-Pope SG Georgia .469 2.6
10 Cody Zeller PF Indiana .475 2.5
9 C.J. McCollum SG Lehigh .496 2.5
14 Lucas Nogueira C Estudiantes .474 2.4
59 D.J. Cooper PG Ohio .504 2.3
36 Nate Wolters PG South Dakota St. .492 2.2
8 Trey Burke PG Michigan .459 2.2
35 Pierre Jackson PG Baylor .482 2.1
56 Arsalan Kazemi PF Oregon .510 2.1
4 Anthony Bennett PF UNLV .447 2.1
7 Michael Carter-Williams PG Syracuse .473 2.0
13 Sergey Karasev SF Triumph .429 2.0
74 Ryan Broekhoff SF Valparaiso .497 2.0
12 Steven Adams C Pittsburgh .429 1.9
78 Khalif Wyatt SG Temple .474 1.6
24 Glen Rice Jr. SF Rio Grande Valley .473 1.6
18 Shane Larkin PG Miami (FL) .433 1.6
33 Mike Muscala C Bucknell .460 1.5
63 Marko Todorovic PF FC Barcelona .442 1.5
38 Grant Jerrett PF Arizona .415 1.5
21 Tony Mitchell SF North Texas .442 1.5
75 Robert Covington SF Tennessee St. .467 1.4
34 Alex Abrines SG FC Barcelona .407 1.4
48 Phil Pressey PG Missouri .454 1.2
91 Will Cherry PG Montana .453 1.2
67 Bojan Dubljevic PF Valencia .438 1.2
25 Allen Crabbe SG California .426 1.1
44 Ray McCallum PG Detroit .444 1.1
53 James Southerland SF Syracuse .466 1.1
55 Ryan Kelly PF Duke .446 1.1
19 Kelly Olynyk PF Gonzaga .445 1.1
2 Victor Oladipo SG Indiana .443 1.1
6 Ben McLemore SG Kansas .404 1.1
58 D.J. Stephens SF Memphis .449 1.0
23 Reggie Bullock SF North Carolina .443 1.0
32 Jeff Withey C Kansas .465 1.0
45 B.J. Young PG Arkansas .393 0.9
87 Matthew Dellavedova PG Saint Mary’s .450 0.9
29 Isaiah Canaan PG Murray St. .430 0.8
20 Jamaal Franklin SG San Diego St. .424 0.7
97 Ian Clark SG Belmont .431 0.7
94 Joffrey Lauvergne PF Partizan .416 0.6
28 Tim Hardaway Jr. SG Michigan .405 0.6
52 Deshaun Thomas SF Ohio St. .417 0.6
65 Raul Neto PG Lagun Aro .395 0.5
57 James Ennis SF Long Beach St. .434 0.4
68 Seth Curry SG Duke .430 0.4
50 Trevor Mbakwe PF Minnesota .463 0.4
40 Erick Green PG Virginia Tech .413 0.4
5 Alex Len C Maryland .366 0.3
90 Brandon Davies PF Brigham Young .406 0.3
70 Brandon Paul SG Illinois .411 0.3
83 Laurence Bowers SF Missouri .433 0.3
27 Gorgui Dieng C Louisville .435 0.2
49 Myck Kabongo PG Texas .389 0.1
88 C.J. Aiken SF Saint Joseph’s .413 0.1
54 Richard Howell PF North Carolina St. .413 0.1
62 Erik Murphy PF Florida .409 0.0
79 Solomon Hill SF Arizona .399 0.0
76 Peyton Siva PG Louisville .405 -0.1
96 Oleksandr Lypovyy SF BC Donetsk .382 -0.1
30 Tony Snell SF New Mexico .379 -0.2
99 Christian Watford SF Indiana .387 -0.2
98 Rotnei Clarke PG Butler .425 -0.3
64 Adonis Thomas PF Memphis .345 -0.3
42 Lorenzo Brown PG North Carolina St. .397 -0.3
37 Archie Goodwin SG Kentucky .312 -0.3
80 Rodney Williams SF Minnesota .379 -0.4
77 Will Clyburn SG Iowa St. .403 -0.4
22 Mason Plumlee PF Duke .407 -0.4
81 Ed Daniel PF Murray St. .401 -0.4
51 Nemanja Nedovic SG Lietuvos Rytas .376 -0.4
84 Zeke Marshall C Akron .387 -0.4
41 C.J. Leslie PF North Carolina St. .373 -0.5
85 Ramon Galloway PG La Salle .380 -0.5
17 Shabazz Muhammad SF UCLA .335 -0.7
100 Elijah Johnson PG Kansas .380 -0.8
82 Elias Harris SF Gonzaga .395 -1.0
95 Travis Releford SG Kansas .381 -1.0
86 Jamelle Hagins PF Delaware .363 -1.1
71 Vander Blue SG Marquette .323 -1.1
69 Augusto Lima PF Malaga .341 -1.1
60 Carrick Felix SF Arizona St. .361 -1.2
89 Romero Osby PF Oklahoma .367 -1.2
43 Jackie Carmichael PF Illinois St. .364 -1.5
73 DeWayne Dedmon C USC .370 -1.5
47 Colton Iverson C Colorado St. .359 -1.8
66 Kenny Kadji PF Miami (FL) .380 -1.9
72 Michael Snaer SG Florida St. .330 -2.5
93 Amath M’Baye SF Oklahoma .299 -3.

[Author]

Posts