Breaking Down the 2017 NBA Draft Odds: Who Were the Top Picks?

I still remember the excitement buzzing through the basketball community back in 2017 when the NBA draft approached. Having followed basketball analytics for over a decade, I've always found draft odds particularly fascinating—they represent this beautiful intersection of statistics, potential, and pure gut feeling. The 2017 draft class was especially intriguing because it came during a period of significant transition in how teams evaluated talent, with advanced metrics becoming increasingly influential in front office decisions. What made this draft personally memorable was watching how different franchises balanced traditional scouting with emerging data-driven approaches, creating one of the most analytically interesting drafts in recent memory.

When we talk about the top picks from that year, Markelle Fultz heading to Philadelphia as the first overall selection wasn't particularly surprising to those of us tracking draft projections. The Sixers had been transparent about their rebuilding strategy, and Fultz's combination of size and playmaking fit perfectly with their "Process" timeline. What fascinated me more was Boston's decision to trade down and select Jayson Tatum third overall—a move that initially raised eyebrows but ultimately proved brilliant. I've always believed teams overvalue draft position, and Boston's willingness to trust their evaluation over conventional wisdom demonstrated how draft success often comes from conviction rather than consensus. The Celtics' front office saw something special in Tatum's offensive versatility that others underestimated, and watching his development has been one of my favorite NBA narratives over the past several seasons.

The Lakers selecting Lonzo Ball second overall created perhaps the most buzz, partly due to the unavoidable media circus surrounding his family but also because of his unique passing vision. From my perspective, Ball represented both the promise and peril of modern player evaluation—his statistical profile in college was extraordinary, particularly his assist numbers and defensive metrics, but questions about his shooting mechanics were legitimate concerns that ultimately impacted his early professional development. What often gets overlooked in draft analysis is how much organizational fit matters, and I've always wondered how Ball's career might have unfolded differently had he landed with a franchise that could have provided more stability during those formative years.

Looking back at the 2017 draft through today's lens, what strikes me is how the success stories emerged from unexpected places. Donovan Mitchell going thirteenth to Utah turned out to be one of the biggest steals in recent draft history, while Bam Adebayo at fourteenth to Miami demonstrated how teams were beginning to properly value versatile big men in the modern game. The evolution of these players reminds me that draft night is merely the beginning of the story—development systems, coaching, and organizational culture ultimately determine which prospects fulfill their potential. I've noticed that the most successful franchises in recent years aren't necessarily those with the highest picks, but rather those with the most coherent developmental pathways for their selections.

The context of that draft year connects interestingly to the reference about UST hosting since Season 79, which took me back to remembering how basketball traditions and venues create these connective threads through the sport's history. Just as certain venues become embedded in basketball lore, draft classes become reference points that define eras and franchise trajectories. The 2017 class has given us multiple All-Stars and fundamentally changed several franchises' directions, proving that a single draft can reshape the league's competitive landscape for years to come. From my viewpoint, what makes analyzing drafts so compelling is watching how initial perceptions evolve over time—players we initially underestimate often become the most impactful, while can't-miss prospects sometimes remind us that potential remains the most elusive quality to quantify in sports.

Reflecting on the 2017 draft six years later, I'm struck by how it exemplified the ongoing evolution in talent evaluation. Teams are getting better at identifying specific skill sets that translate to the modern game, moving beyond traditional measurements to understand how players fit systematic needs. The success of players like Tatum, Mitchell, and Adebayo demonstrates the value of prioritizing basketball IQ and versatility over raw physical tools alone. In my experience following the draft process, the organizations that succeed long-term are those that understand drafting isn't about finding the "best" player in isolation, but rather identifying the right player for their specific context and development system. The 2017 class will likely be remembered as a turning point where analytics became fully integrated into the draft conversation, creating a new template for how franchises build toward contention.