NBA draft: What the final numbers reveal about 30 top prospects

As important as trades were to constructing the Indiana Pacers and Oklahoma City Thunder rosters that met in the NBA Finals, the draft was still crucial for building both starting fives. Half of the 10 players who started the first three games of the series were acquired through the draft, and a sixth (Luguentz Dort) signed with the Thunder immediately after going undrafted.

The development of 2022 lottery picks Chet Holmgren and Jalen Williams helped push Oklahoma City over the top to win the West for the first time since 2012, while 2022 second-round pick Andrew Nembhard has become a crucial role player for Indiana.

It’s impossible to say exactly which of the 59 players drafted next week could make the same kind of impact a few years down the line, but my stats-based projections have helped identify sleepers such as Pacers All-Star Tyrese Haliburton. Haliburton ranked second overall in 2020 but wasn’t taken until the 12th overall pick by the Sacramento Kings, with teammate Aaron Nesmith (10th) and Thunder reserve Isaiah Joe (11th) also tabbed as undervalued prospects that year.

My stats-only projections incorporate performance in NCAA Division I, the G League and select European leagues, plus age. The consensus projections, the better predictor of NBA success, combine that with ranking in the top 100 by ESPN’s Jonathan Givony and Jeremy Woo. Previously, we ran my projections for the top 30 prospects in April after the early entry deadline. The updated rankings remove players who withdrew by last Sunday and also feature the latest top 100.

For more on how my model works, click here.

Let’s get to the top 30 projections with analysis on each player, plus full rankings for everyone in the top 100 and unranked prospects who rate better than replacement level.

Duke | F
Top 100: No. 1
Stats: No. 1

Consensus: 5.3 WARP

Flagg’s well-rounded game should be a strong fit with the Dallas Mavericks, who are looking to win right now despite landing the No. 1 pick. Flagg is the only player in this year’s draft without any statistical weaknesses — he doesn’t project 15% worse than the average NBA-bound college prospect at his position in any of the 10 key categories I evaluate. The Kings’ Keegan Murray is the lone other draft pick since 2022 without any statistical weaknesses, but he was two years older and had fewer strengths (four, as compared to six for Flagg).

As a result, Flagg’s consensus projection is the third best in my database, which covers all college players since 2005 and some as far back as 2003. In that span, he’s behind Zion Williamson (5.5) and Luka Doncic (5.4).

Duke | G/F
Top 100: No. 6
Stats: No. 2

Consensus: 4.1 WARP

Flagg’s teammate was also outstanding as a freshman, posting the third-best rating in Sports-Reference’s box plus-minus (BPM) of first-year players who saw at least 1,000 minutes of action. There’s no questioning Knueppel’s shooting ability. He hit 41% of his 3s and 91% of his free throws at Duke, producing easily the best projected shooting of any non-senior in the draft. But Knueppel’s play on a less-loaded team in the Nike EYBL AAU competition suggests he can be more than just a shooter in the NBA. Knueppel posted a .642 true shooting percentage on 35% usage in 2023, giving him the strongest projection based solely on EYBL play of any draft prospect who competed in either 2022 or 2023. (Flagg, notably, did not participate.)

Baylor | SG
Top 100: No. 4
Stats: No. 3

Consensus: 3.9 WARP

Edgecombe was the second-best freshman in terms of BPM in large part because of his defensive contributions. His projected steal rate (2.2 per 100 plays) is the best of any prospect ranked in the top 80, and Edgecombe will be one of just eight drafted guards in my database with a steal rate better than 2.0 while projected to block at least 1% of opponent 2-point attempts. Offensively, Edgecombe is still developing, having scored with far better efficiency in conference play (.580 true shooting percentage) than over the first two months of the season (.480).

Rutgers | G
Top 100: No. 2
Stats: No. 4

Consensus: 3.7 WARP

I wouldn’t take Harper ranking fourth as real criticism. There’s relatively little separation among the next three prospects after Flagg. It’s more telling that Harper is in the top five of the stats-only model. Of the 23 players who rated in the top five based solely on stats and were also drafted in the top five between 2007 and 2019, 17 have become All-Stars.

Harper didn’t rate as well as Edgecombe and Knueppel on a per-minute basis last season, but he would have the slightly better consensus projection based only on NCAA performance because he’s more than half a year younger than both.

Rutgers | PF
Top 100: No. 3
Stats: No. 22

Consensus: 2.9 WARP

Bailey made headlines during the combine for answering a question from ESPN’s Sean Farham about his two top strengths and a weakness by saying “I ain’t got no weaknesses and I got more than two strengths, big dog.”

Alas, Bailey’s stats aren’t as optimistic. Usage rate is his lone statistical strength, while he projects with four weaknesses — most notably his low 2-point percentage (51%) and steal rate. The most similar prospects in my database include four top-two picks, but not necessarily the ones you’d want: 2014 top picks Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker, plus Marvin Bagley and Brandon Ingram. Those players, like Bailey, tended to rely more on volume scoring than well-rounded play.

6. Noa Essengue

Ratiopharm Ulm | PF
Top 100: No. 9
Stats: No. 5

Consensus: 2.9 WARP

A late rise up the top 100 has moved Essengue closer to his top-five stats-only projection, which is built on his play in the EuroCup continental competition. Essengue averaged 12.4 points and 5.3 rebounds in 23.7 minutes per game over 18 games for Ulm, shooting 66% on 2s and averaging 2.1 steals per 36 minutes. Essengue may need to improve his 3-point shooting, hitting 29% of his 3s on 38 EuroCup attempts and faring worse in German BBL play, but he has time. Essengue won’t turn 19 until December, making him the second-youngest prospect in the top 100 after Flagg.

Oklahoma | PG
Top 100: No. 8
Stats: No. 16

Consensus: 2.7 WARP

A high usage rate — projected third among prospects in the top 30, behind Flagg and Nolan Traore — probably means more volatility as a prospect for Fears. The list of lottery college point guards since 2012 with projected usage rates of 21% or higher includes Trae Young, but also players who weren’t efficient enough in the NBA to justify central offensive roles (Trey Burke and Kris Dunn). Collin Sexton probably represents the median outcome for this group, which is rounded out by Markelle Fultz and Marcus Smart.

BYU | PG
Top 100: No. 11
Stats: No. 15

Consensus: 2.5 WARP

As a 6-foot-9 point guard with premier playmaking ability (his projected assist rate is second to Traore among top-30 prospects) but limited outside shooting ability (27% from the college 3), Demin is a unique prospect. Flagg is the only other player in the top 30 without any previous NCAA prospect scoring a similarity of at least 96 on a scale where 100 represents greatest similarity. Demin and Fears have almost identical overall projections with wildly different skill sets, making them an interesting pair of prospects to watch on draft night.

Texas | SG
Top 100: No. 5
Stats: No. 24

Consensus: 2.5 WARP

A 40% 3-point shooter on nearly seven attempts per game, Johnson also hit 87% of his foul shots, giving him the second-best shooting projection among players ranked in the top 20 after Knueppel. Whereas Knueppel also hit 57% of his 2s, Johnson’s 45% accuracy inside the arc was second lowest among prospects in the top 60. Cam Thomas is a good role model in terms of how Johnson could refine his shot selection in the NBA. A 46% 2-point shooter at LSU, Thomas has hit 49% of his 2s as a pro.

South Carolina | PF
Top 100: No. 14
Stats: No. 11

Consensus: 2.5 WARP

Murray-Boyles’ well-rounded game actually produces the most statistical strengths for any prospect (seven), just ahead of Flagg (six). Shooting as one of Murray-Boyles’ two weaknesses is a concern, particularly because he’s unlikely to play primarily at center after measuring 6-foot-6½ in bare feet at the NBA draft combine. But Murray-Boyles is an outstanding finisher (62% on 2s) who stuffs the stat sheet.

Arizona | F
Top 100: No. 12
Stats: No. 14

Consensus: 2.5 WARP

The move Bryant has made since the last update, when he ranked 18th, reflects the role of the top 100 in the consensus projections. Bryant has actually moved slightly ahead of his stats-only projection, which is still good for the back end of the lottery. That might seem surprising about a player who started just five games and averaged 6.5 points as a freshman, but Bryant’s block rate is elite for a perimeter player, and he understands his role in spacing the floor on offense.

Illinois | PG
Top 100: No. 10
Stats: No. 18

Consensus: 2.4 WARP

Jakucionis is down a couple of spots due to sliding from seventh in the top 100 as of the last update, which is closer to his stats-based projection. Although Jakucionis is a skilled offensive player, his limited defensive playmaking is a concern. Jakucionis has one of the three lowest steal projections for drafted point guards since 2012 and blocked just nine shots during the 2024-25 season.

Georgia | PF
Top 100: No. 19
Stats: No. 8

Consensus: 2.4 WARP

Newell was productive as a freshman, averaging 15.4 points and 6.9 rebounds in just 29.0 minutes per game. As compared to the other post players outside the top 10, Newell was a better finisher, making 63% of his 2-point attempts. It’s fair to wonder whether Newell could be a tweener, however. He’s a poor rim protector for a center and not yet a floor spacer at power forward, having shot 29% on 3s.

Duke | C
Top 100: No. 7
Stats: No. 29

Consensus: 2.3 WARP

As the best plug-and-play option at center, Maluach should excel as a rim runner after shooting 75% on 2s while also ranking atop the projected offensive rebound percentage category. Maluach’s stats-only projection is held back in part by his relatively low block rate — just 7% of opponent 2-point attempts, far less than the 13% Dereck Lively II blocked for Duke two years earlier. Maluach’s defensive versatility to switch on guards is not captured by his box-score stats, however.

Washington State | SF
Top 100: No. 21
Stats: No. 13

Consensus: 2.2 WARP

After performing well in combine drills, Coward opted to remain in the draft rather than transfer to Duke. He’s the biggest mover from the last update, up from 27th, albeit still not quite where Coward ranks in my stats-only projections thanks to his hyperaccurate 2-point shooting (72% career). Coward also boasts strong steal and rebound rates should he move to the wing, where his 39% 3-point shooting is encouraging.

Michigan State | G
Top 100: No. 18
Stats: No. 17

Consensus: 2.2 WARP

The combine measurements worked against Richardson, who was listed at 6-3 but measured barely more than 6 feet without shoes. As a combo guard, Richardson was extremely efficient at Michigan State, posting a .624 true shooting percentage with an assist-to-turnover ratio better than two. Richardson wasn’t quite as effective in EYBL play, so he has moved back in the top 100 near where his stats-only projection ranked all along.

Florida | PG
Top 100: No. 28
Stats: No. 10

Consensus: 2.2 WARP

Conventional wisdom says prospects such as Clayton, the Most Outstanding Player of the Final Four, tend to be overdrafted after strong NCAA tournament runs. I actually found the opposite when I researched the topic in 2017, that prospects tended to outperform their draft slot after reaching the Final Four. There was plenty to like about Clayton before March, regardless, including 39% career 3-point shooting and a low turnover rate. Clayton isn’t a natural playmaker, which could be an issue at his size, but I like his value in the late first round.

Saint Joseph’s | PF
Top 100: No. 27
Stats: No. 12

Consensus: 2.1 WARP

As a junior at Saint Joseph’s, Fleming shot 65% on 2s and 39% on 3s, the latter being a huge step forward after he hit just 31% over his first two college seasons. If Fleming can shoot well enough to stick at power forward in the NBA, his rebounding and shot blocking will be major advantages. If not, Fleming is big enough to potentially play center off the bench. One reason Fleming rates so well statistically: He won’t turn 21 until July, making him the youngest upperclassmen in the draft.

UConn | SF
Top 100: No. 17
Stats: No. 20

Consensus: 2.1 WARP

How well McNeeley shoots in the NBA will be an interesting test of the predictive power of free throw percentage. McNeeley shot 87% at the free throw line but just 32% from 3 on a sample of 145 attempts. McNeeley was also somewhat more accurate in EYBL play, shooting 36% in two years of action. He was able to maintain efficiency at UConn by getting to the line regularly but will need to shoot better from 3 as a pro.

Kentucky | SG
Top 100: No. 47
Stats: No. 6

Consensus: 2.0 WARP

The combination of Brea’s size and shooting ability projects well even though the rest of his game is limited. Brea peaked at 11.6 points per game as a fifth-year senior at Kentucky after four seasons at Dayton, but he shot 46.5% on six 3-point attempts per game his last two years. Based on that, Brea’s shooting rating is the best of any prospect ever in my database.

Marquette | G
Top 100: No. 46
Stats: No. 9

Consensus: 1.9 WARP

Jones failed to move up his top-100 stock while playing in the scrimmages at the combine, but he has four years of him excelling in NCAA games at Marquette to rely on. Jones shot 59% inside the arc for his college career and peaked at 41% on 3s before slipping to 31% as a senior. Jones showed more playmaking chops last season, averaging a career-high 5.9 assists per game after previously playing off the ball alongside 2024 second-round pick Tyler Kolek.

Georgetown | C
Top 100: No. 16
Stats: No. 26

Consensus: 1.9 WARP

The stats-only projection for Sorber is best of any center in this year’s draft, a change from 2024, when lottery picks Donovan Clingan, Zach Edey and Alex Sarr all ranked in the top five. The extreme efficiency from Clingan and Edey helped set the bar high for this year’s group, which wasn’t as prolific. Sorber shot just 53%, low for a modern center, though he compensates with statistical strengths in three key defensive categories: rebound rate, block rate and steal rate.

Iowa | SF
Top 100: No. 84
Stats: No. 7

Consensus: 1.9 WARP

A slump as a senior, when Sandfort shot an effective 50% from the field after a 56% eFG% as a junior, doesn’t prevent him from a strong stats-only ranking. Sandfort shot 3s at high volume (7-plus per game the past two seasons) and hit 90% of his career free throw attempt. The concern is Sandfort’s low steal and block rates. which might suggest difficulty keeping up defensively.

24. Nolan Traore

Saint Quentin | PG
Top 100: No. 23
Stats: No. 29

Consensus: 1.6 WARP

In his first full season in the French LNB, Traore averaged 11.6 points and 5.1 assists just 22.6 minutes per game. He has the best assist projection of any player ranked in the top 90, but scoring efficiency is a concern. Traore made just 30% of his 3s, and his 45% accuracy inside the arc was also below average.

Illinois | F/G
Top 100: No. 24
Stats: No. 36

Consensus: 1.4 WARP

Coming primarily off the bench on a deep Illini squad, Riley averaged 12.6 points in just 25.7 minutes per game as a freshman. Illinois was at its best with Riley on the court, outscoring opponents by 16 points per 100 possessions as compared to a plus-6.5 net rating with him on the bench, according to CBB Analytics. Riley’s own stats weren’t that effusive, but his 24% usage rate suggests potential for more.

Texas A&M | PG
Top 100: NR
Stats: No. 19

Consensus: 1.4 WARP

The highest-rated player not ranked in the top 100, Taylor projects this well primarily on the strength of his sophomore season in 2022-23. Taylor had a .575 true shooting percentage with a 30% usage rate, efficiency he hasn’t been able to match since. Taylor has the highest projected usage rate of any player in the draft, and his career 85% foul shooting suggests he could prove a better 3-point shooter than his 32% college mark.

Florida | SG
Top 100: No. 72
Stats: No. 21

Consensus: 1.4 WARP

The leading scorer for the national champs in the title game, Richard never had a usage rate higher than 18% in three seasons with the Gators but shot better than 60% on 2s in his college career and 36% on 3s at Florida. Richard would fit particularly well running the wings for an up-tempo team, having averaged 3.9 points per game in transition last season to rank in the top 100 in Division I, per Synergy Sports tracking.

28. Joan Beringer

Cedevita Olimpija | C
Top 100: No. 15
Stats: No. 52

Consensus: 1.3 WARP

The best projected shot blocker in the draft, Beringer led the Adriatic League — which has produced multiple NBA starting centers, including Nikola Jokic — in averaging 1.5 blocks in just 18.3 minutes per game at age 18. Offensively, Beringer’s development lags behind. He averaged just 9.7 points per 36 minutes and has the lowest projected usage of any top-60 prospect.

Tennessee | PG
Top 100: No. 98
Stats: No. 22

Consensus: 1.3 WARP

A late entrant to the top 100, Zeigler has the best projected assist rate of any prospect after averaging 7.4 per game as a senior and also stands out in terms of his high steal rate. The downside is Zeigler is listed at 5-foot-9 and was a below-average 3-point shooter from the NCAA line (33%). Per Stathead.com, Brevin Knight is the only sub-6-footer to play more than 5,000 NBA minutes over the past decade without shooting at least 35% from 3.

30. Rocco Zikarsky

Brisbane | C
Top 100: No. 22
Stats: No. 29

Consensus: 1.3 WARP

Zikarsky measured at 7-foot-3 without shoes at the combine and is predictably a strong shot blocker. He averaged 1.0 in the Australian NBL in 2023-24 in just 7 minutes per game when he was 17. Zikarsky played more minutes last season but wasn’t quite as productive on a per-minute basis. While his usage projects higher than Beringer’s, Zikarsky also doesn’t look like an efficient scorer relative to the standards for modern centers.

Maryland | C
Top 100: No. 13
Stats: No. 62

Consensus: 1.2 WARP

It’s worth discussing Queen, the highest-ranked player not to crack the top 30. Although Queen is far more skilled than some of the centers above him, his 56% 2-point shooting was low by the standards of a modern center. Queen blocked just 4% of opponent 2-point attempts, poor for a center and the reason the players most similar to him are often combo bigs such as Bobby Portis and Cody Zeller. Lastly, Queen turned 20 during his freshman season. He’s a year older than Sorber and nearly two years older than Beringer.