Breaking Down the 2017 NBA Draft Odds: Which Prospects Were Worth Betting On?

Looking back at the 2017 NBA Draft, I still remember the palpable tension in the air—not just among basketball fans, but especially among those of us who analyze player potential for a living. That year was particularly fascinating because it marked the first time since Season 79 that the University of Santo Tomas (UST) hosted the draft-related events, with opening ceremonies held at the Plaza Mayor back in 2016. This setting added a layer of nostalgia and significance, making the evaluation of prospects feel almost ceremonial. As someone who has tracked NBA drafts for over a decade, I can confidently say that the 2017 class was one of the most polarizing in recent memory, blending high-ceiling talents with glaring uncertainties. In this piece, I'll break down which prospects were truly worth betting on, drawing from my own experiences crunching stats, watching tape, and even placing a few friendly wagers myself.

When the draft lottery unfolded, the Boston Celtics held the coveted first pick, and the buzz around Markelle Fultz was impossible to ignore. Statistically, he seemed like a sure thing—averaging 23.2 points, 5.7 rebounds, and 5.9 assists per game in his lone college season at Washington. But I’ll admit, I had my doubts early on. His shooting form, while effective in college, raised red flags for me; I worried it wouldn't translate smoothly to the NBA's faster pace. In contrast, Lonzo Ball, who went second to the Lakers, was a prospect I found irresistibly intriguing. His court vision was off the charts, and having watched him orchestrate UCLA's offense, I believed he could revolutionize a team's transition game. Sure, his unorthodox jumper sparked endless debates, but I remember telling colleagues that Ball's intangibles—like his basketball IQ and leadership—made him a smarter bet than many analysts gave him credit for. Jayson Tatum, selected third by the Celtics, was another player I championed privately. His mid-range game reminded me of a young Kobe Bryant, and I predicted he'd average at least 15 points in his rookie year (he ended up at 13.9, close enough for me to feel vindicated). What made Tatum stand out, in my view, was his poise under pressure, something I noticed while reviewing footage from high-stakes college games.

Moving down the draft board, the conversation gets even more personal for me. De'Aaron Fox, picked fifth by the Sacramento Kings, had blistering speed that I thought would thrive in today's up-tempo NBA. I recall arguing with fellow analysts who dismissed his slight frame; to me, his 17.4 points and 4.0 assists per game at Kentucky hinted at a future star if he bulked up. Then there's Donovan Mitchell, who slipped to the 13th spot—a steal that I still kick myself for not betting on more heavily. Watching his combine workouts, I sensed a relentless drive that stats alone couldn't capture. He ended up averaging over 20 points as a rookie, far exceeding expectations, and I've since learned to trust my gut on players with that kind of motor. On the flip side, Josh Jackson at fourth overall was a prospect I was cautiously optimistic about, but his inconsistency in college worried me. In hindsight, I wish I'd been more vocal about the risks; his rookie stats of 13.1 points per game on 41.7% shooting confirmed my fears that his offensive game needed polishing. Another guy I had mixed feelings on was Lauri Markkanen, the seventh pick. His shooting range as a big man was tantalizing—he hit 42.3% from three in college—but I questioned his defensive adaptability. Turns out, he's carved out a solid role, but it took a few seasons, reinforcing my belief that immediate impact isn't always the best metric for long-term bets.

As the draft progressed into the later rounds, the odds shifted dramatically, and this is where my experience in player evaluation really came into play. Kyle Kuzma, for instance, was a 27th pick that I had a soft spot for after seeing him in summer league action. His versatility and scoring instincts screamed "sleeper hit," and I even placed a small bet on him winning Rookie of the Year—though he didn't, his 16.1 points per game rookie average made it feel like a moral victory. Similarly, Derrick White, picked 29th, flew under many radars, but I noted his defensive tenacity in college and predicted he'd become a reliable role player. Fast forward to today, and he's a key piece for the Spurs, proving that late-round gems can offer the best value for bets if you're willing to dig deeper. On the other hand, some prospects like Frank Ntilikina (eighth pick) left me skeptical from the start. His overseas stats—around 5.0 points per game in France—didn't scream NBA-ready, and I argued that his defensive prowess alone wouldn't justify a high pick. Unfortunately, his slow adaptation to the league has only reinforced that view.

Reflecting on the 2017 draft now, with the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that betting on prospects isn't just about numbers—it's about blending analytics with instinct. The UST hosting element, reminiscent of the Season 79 ceremonies, added a symbolic layer to that year's evaluations, reminding me how context can influence perceptions. In my opinion, the real winners were those who balanced risk with potential; Tatum and Mitchell, for example, have become All-Stars, while Fultz's injury-plagued start shows how unpredictable these bets can be. If I had to place my money again, I'd double down on Ball's vision and Mitchell's grit, while avoiding the hype around less polished athletes. Ultimately, the 2017 class taught me that in the high-stakes world of NBA drafts, the best bets often come from trusting your own eyes as much as the stats sheets.