Does Loyola (Chi) have the worst draft record in history?

[penbeast0]

Each franchise meaning the two franchises (other than Portland) that drafted a Loyola (Chi) player in round 1.

[Owly]

Each franchise meaning the two franchises (other than Portland) that drafted a Loyola (Chi) player in round 1.

Well it's simple enough to look those up, though how ABA counts is a headache.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/draft.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/draft.html
Sort by pick.
By what I now take as your meaning the Spurs simply haven't had enough picks in the top 14 to have a shot at it ('21 pick can't play 2 years yet, only '20, '84, '86, '87 (1st overall, no-brainer), '89 and '97 (1st overall, no-brainer). They've been too good.
The Jazz do have Luther Wright (Jose Ortiz played less than a season's worth of games but did so extending into a second season).

[penbeast0]

Thanks.

[shakes0]

I am willing to bet money that each franchise has at least one draft choice (probably several) drafted higher that also played 1 season or less as a pro. You could look it up if you are interested. Now LaRue Martin, a #1 pick that flopped, that's almost certainly Portland's worst. Maybe NBA worst though there's always Anthony Bennett.

Portland’s worst pick was Bowie.

[JordansBulls]

Their 3 first round picks are commonly though to be worst draft selections of all time for the 3 franchises who selected them

They still the only one to win a National Championship in Illinois history in basketball. Even though the Illini in 1989 and 2005 should had and maybe last year as well.

[SeattleJazzFan]

Disagree on Bradley. He looked awkward, got dunked on etc, wasn't a scorer.

But for instance the '97-'14 RAPM has him as the clear rate and value over average winner in that time frame (misses Penny's apex of course). https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/97-14-rapm-2, https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/97-14-rapm

1) Webber 0.88 (185th), 501.1 (94th)
2) Bradley 2.47 (49th), 667.9 (76th)
3) Hardaway 0.62 (227th), 190.5 (175th)
(then Mashburn, Rider, Cheaney all stuck around neutral, Bakers and Rogers too - Hurley more clearly negative. Then Hunter a little negative, Houston more clearly negative).

Bradley has evidence of impact even in his rookie year when he was pretty box-production awful as a rookie (8.2 on off and 76ers clearly worse when he was injured).

He has his issues (low minutes in Dallas, playoff regressions - especially if you think they are more than noise). But Bradley has a case as pretty wildly underrated.

i would agree that his career is underrated, but for a #2 overall pick, he was a bust.

I think I'd have to know more what you mean.

What do you mean by bust (is it about performance versus expectations, is it about an absolute level of performance, to what extent do you take account of other options in the draft [is it possible to have a draft full of busts]. What do you mean by "for a #2 overall pick" ... are we asking whether a team would trade a lot to move him for an opportunity to get an average number two pick? To what extent does context matter.

If assessing within '93, leaving aside Hardaway, granting the injuries (and the potential and the peak), the data above suggests he was a better option than anyone else on the board in the top 11 (and indeed beyond, though at 24 [not in contention for the selection at 2] Cassell offers what I think will be the second best RAPM and RAPM above average for that span in the class with higher productivity). Would whoever were taken at 2 (or - and it might change, though for a long while not too long before this year 3rd picks were typically outperforming 2nd picks - 3rd pick if Hardaway taken second) been a bust.

People's definitions will differ:
Some had or gave the impression of very high expectations of Bradley. If that's a factor that will hurt.
Per the intial post playstyle and image might have been more harmful (dunked on, not a scorer, slightly goofy image, tall, white).
Personally, I think I would want a guy to be bad - unable to be remotely useful in a playoff team's rotation or perhaps even heading [or deserving] to be quickly out of the league or have many very clearly better players in the following picks to call the player or pick a bust. To me neither of these describe Bradley, though given the scoring-centric thinking of the time I can imagine people might have thought the latter (seeing Rider and Mashburn as stars).

This post has focused on one version of one metric. Others mileage may differ.

what i mean is that when you draft a guy with the #2 overall pick, you expect him to be better than Bradley was.

[wojoaderge]

I am willing to bet money that each franchise has at least one draft choice (probably several) drafted higher that also played 1 season or less as a pro. You could look it up if you are interested. Now LaRue Martin, a #1 pick that flopped, that's almost certainly Portland's worst. Maybe NBA worst though there's always Anthony Bennett.

Portland’s worst pick was Bowie.

He was a better player than Martin though

[penbeast0]

Portland’s worst pick was Bowie.

He was a better player than Martin though

Interesting thought. The next player picked in 72 was Bob McAdoo (followed by a bunch of nonentities until the 10th pick) whereas in 1984, it was Jordan. While Bowie had a much better NBA career even with the injuries (and was clearly the better player of the two 1st picks in terms of talent), Jordan was also a serious level up even from a talented player with his own MVP like McAdoo.