Why Lonzo Ball was the best selection:
I can already see the backlash about this point — “Lonzo Ball‘s shot is terrible, he is only averaging 12.4 points and 7.0 assists per game and he is the biggest bust of the 2017 NBA Draft”. There is a lot of disdain for Lonzo Ball among the Laker fanbase, most of it being his father’s fault, as the expectations for Lonzo in LA were far too high.
Was Lonzo Ball a disappointment in Los Angeles? Yes, anything less than a borderline all-star year would have been a disappointment with the hype around him. Was Lonzo Ball a failure in Los Angeles? Absolutely not.
He was obviously a key piece in the Anthony Davis trade, so even if his tenure in Los Angeles was not perfect, despite his flashes, he still added some returned value to the franchise.
Second of all, the options the Lakers could have went with are either unrealistic for what the team already had or would have simply been grasping for straws using 20/20 hindsight.
The immediate argument for who the Lakers should have selected over Lonzo is Jayston Tatum and there is no reason to even try and argue for Lonzo being the better player, he is not.
However, on the Lakers, Tatum would have been more of the same. The team already had a young wing that they were developing in Brandon Ingram and with the eventual arrival of LeBron James, Kawhi Leonard or Paul George (the three most likely outcomes at the time), it would have been really redundant to add a young wing to try and develop.
In a fantasy world where the Lakers knew how good Tatum could be, they could have made it work. Using hindsight knowing what the team already had on the roster is unrealistic.
There is also the argument for drafting Donovan Mitchell, who would have been easier to implement into the offense in the backcourt. Two things about this make it a ‘grasping for straws’ idea.
First of all, Mitchell was the biggest surprise of the entire draft. While he was a lottery pick, he was never expected to even touch the top-five and us pretending like the Lakers should have picked him second is, again, using 20/20 hindsight.
Second of all, you could make the case that Mitchell would not have developed as quickly into the player he is today as he would have likely been the second scoring option, perhaps even third, behind Ingram and Randle.
De’Aaron Fox is the one player that could make a legitimate case for being drafted over Lonzo as they share a position and were drafted relatively close in proximity. Fox has been the better player offensively thus far throughout their careers, without a doubt, but Ball is the better defender.
Plus, Fox has benefitted statistically from having a much higher usage rate. He had a combined usage rate of 24 percent in his first two seasons compared to Ball’s 17.2 percent usage rate in his Laker years.
For what the Los Angeles Lakers had on the roster and for what they needed, Lonzo Ball was the right pick. Even if they went with Fox, the difference in those two seasons would have been marginal and he likely would have been sent to New Orleans for Anthony Davis as well.