The fact Fultz's team won only 9 games in college while Lonzo doubled the win total of UCLA from the year before.
Wins and Losses matter. And Fultz is not a player that affects winning and losing. While Lonzo is a player who does.
That's not his fault if he had a worst team completely. If you compare Ball team against Fultz player by player UCLA will be better. He was the best player in college with the worst team even facing triple teams especially against UCLA in their match which he outplayed Ball.
I don't care how bad your teammates are. If you are a legit #1 overall pick, you win more than 9 games in college. Even Steph Curry was able to beat big time teams in the NCAA tournament playing with scrubs at Davidson. There is no excuse for such futility in the win/loss column regardless of the school you went to if you are what they say Fultz is. And with regard to Lonzo, he might have gone to a better team, but he made them better. The year before Lonzo, UCLA won 15 games. With him last year they won 30 games. So even if Lonzo went to a better team, he improved the team from what it was. Something Fultz doesn't show he can do.

