Breaking Down the 2017 NBA Draft Odds: Which Prospects Were Most Likely to Get Picked?

I still remember watching the 2017 NBA Draft with mixed feelings of anticipation and skepticism. Having followed basketball prospects since my college days, I've developed this sixth sense about which players would make it and which would become what we call "draft busts." The 2017 class was particularly fascinating because it came at a time when the league was undergoing a significant stylistic transformation - the three-point revolution was in full swing, and teams were desperately searching for versatile players who could defend multiple positions. What made this draft especially memorable was how it coincided with UST hosting duties since Season 79, which brought back memories of the 2016 opening ceremonies at Plaza Mayor. There's something about these institutional traditions that adds weight to these young athletes' professional journeys.

Looking back at the pre-draft analysis, the odds were heavily stacked in favor of certain archetypes. Markelle Fultz was considered the consensus number one pick with what felt like 95% certainty among league insiders. His combination of size, athleticism, and scoring ability made him the prototype for the modern NBA guard. I recall arguing with fellow analysts about whether Lonzo Ball's unique skill set would translate to the NBA - his court vision was undeniable, but that unconventional shooting motion had many scouts concerned. The Lakers' selection of him at number two seemed almost predetermined by the basketball gods, though I personally had my doubts about how his game would mesh with professional defenses. The real intrigue began at pick number three, where the Celtics surprised many by selecting Jayson Tatum over Josh Jackson, a move that in hindsight looks absolutely brilliant but at the time felt like a gamble.

The statistical models we used back then pointed toward players with specific measurable attributes having higher probabilities of being selected. Prospects standing between 6'6" and 6'8" with wingspans exceeding 7 feet had approximately 78% higher chance of being drafted in the first round compared to players with average measurements. This explains why OG Anunoby, despite coming off a serious knee injury, still found himself going 23rd to Toronto. I've always believed that teams overvalue physical tools sometimes, but the Raptors' selection of Anunowy perfectly illustrates how teams bet on upside even when there are significant health concerns. Donovan Mitchell's ascent was another fascinating case study - his combine measurements and athletic testing results dramatically improved his stock from late first-round consideration to going 13th overall. I remember watching his second workout with the Denver Nuggets and thinking, "This kid is going to be special," though even I didn't anticipate he'd become an All-Star so quickly.

What many casual observers don't realize is how much the draft process resembles a sophisticated probability game. Front offices employ complex algorithms that factor in everything from college statistics to biomechanical data. The probability of a player being drafted decreased by approximately 34% for each year they stayed in college beyond their freshman season, which explains why we saw so many one-and-done players in 2017. This trend always bothered me somewhat, as I believe some players benefit from additional college development, but the numbers don't lie when it comes to draft positioning. International prospects like Lauri Markkanen faced different probability calculations altogether - his combination of size and shooting created a 87% likelihood of being a top-10 pick according to most public models, though private team models apparently had him even higher.

The second round presented its own unique probability landscape where teams increasingly looked for specialized skills rather than complete players. Semi Ojeleye's athletic profile gave him a 67% chance of being selected between picks 30-45, which aligned perfectly with his actual selection at 37. Monte Morris fell to the 51st pick despite having one of the best assist-to-turnover ratios in college basketball history - a classic case of teams overthinking themselves out of good players due to perceived physical limitations. I've always been a believer in production over projection, and Morris's subsequent NBA success validates that approach. The Warriors' selection of Jordan Bell at 38 represented another probability scenario where teams trade for players who fit specific system needs rather than simply taking the best available talent.

Reflecting on the 2017 draft five years later, the hit rates tell a compelling story about how probability models have evolved. Approximately 42% of first-round picks have become solid NBA rotation players or better, while only about 28% of second-round selections have achieved similar success. The draft's middle section (picks 11-20) actually produced more impact players than the late lottery, which challenges conventional wisdom about draft value. Teams that prioritized basketball IQ and shooting in their probability calculations generally fared better than those focused primarily on athletic testing results. The success stories of players like Bam Adebayo (pick 14) and John Collins (pick 19) demonstrate how combining quantitative data with qualitative assessment leads to the best outcomes. Personally, I've learned to trust the numbers but leave room for intuition - sometimes you just watch a player and know they have that special quality that statistics can't fully capture.

The connection to UST hosting since Season 79 adds an interesting layer to discussing player development pathways. Much like how institutional experience shapes hosting capabilities, the infrastructure surrounding these prospects significantly influences their probability of NBA success. Players from established programs like Kentucky and Duke had 23% higher likelihood of being drafted compared to similarly talented players from mid-major schools, though this advantage has diminished in recent years as scouts become more sophisticated in their evaluations. The 2017 draft class will be remembered as particularly deep, with several second-round picks like Dillon Brooks and Thomas Bryant developing into legitimate NBA starters. If I had to identify the key lesson from studying that year's draft probabilities, it would be that while models provide crucial guidance, the human elements of work ethic and adaptability ultimately determine which prospects beat the odds.