hussEyquation
Menu

NBA player comparison

Fat Lever vs. Gus Williams: 1985–86 season

hussEyquation1985–86 season · regular-season impact
Regular-season verdict

Fat Lever has the higher model estimate for the 1985–86 season

Impact comparison
+2.7LeadsSeason impactEstimated points per 100 possessions above that season's league average+1.0
#26LeadsSeason impact rank#65
78Games77
2,616Minutes2,284
13.8LeadsPPG13.5
47.3%TS%47.3%

Fat Lever's estimated impact per 100 possessions was +2.7, compared with +1.0 for Gus Williams. This compares their impact while playing, not their total contribution across the season. Both players are compared in the 1985–86 season using its published Impact Rate. A ranked comparison requires at least 450 minutes for each player.

Fat Lever: 78 games and 2,616 minutes. Gus Williams: 77 games and 2,284 minutes. Playing time matters when judging the whole season; the impact estimate above is a rate, not a season total.

Read turnover rate alongside offensive workload. Offensive usage measures the share of team plays a player ends with a shot, free throws, or a turnover while on the court—not every touch, pass, or act of playmaking. These rows provide context; they are not extra points added to the ranking.

Regular season only. Impact figures are estimates; small gaps are not exact. Playoffs, awards and titles do not determine the verdict.

1985–86 season · regular-season impacthusseyquation.com/compare/fat-lever/gus-williams/1985-86

Behind the estimate

Why the model rates them this way

A verified breakdown of this season’s published estimate is unavailable. We do not substitute another season’s calculation.

What this does not establish: these figures do not prove that either player made his teammates shoot better. A verified teammate-shooting comparison is unavailable for this selected season. A small difference in the estimates is not a decisive basketball distinction.

Share this comparisonChoose a social post or link-preview image.

Full comparison · 1985–86 season

Understand the numbers

Start with impact, then compare playing time and skills. Team results add context. These are not categories to tally into a winner.

1 · Ranking evidence

Impact: who ranks higher, and why?

The impact estimate compares performance while playing, not total contribution over the season. The individual-stat estimate plus the lineup adjustment gives the final estimate.

Impact: Fat Lever and Gus Williams
MetricFat LeverGus Williams
Season impactEstimated points per 100 possessions above that season's league average+2.7Better result for this metric.+1.0
Season impact rank#26Better result for this metric.#65

Fat Lever: verified lineup window unavailable. Gus Williams: verified lineup window unavailable. The adjustment is not necessarily based on this season alone.

2 · Playing time and responsibility

How much did each player take on?

Read games and minutes alongside impact. Offensive usage is the share of team plays a player ends with a shot, free throws, or a turnover while on court. More usage is not automatically better.

Playing time and workload: Fat Lever and Gus Williams
MetricFat LeverGus Williams
Games7877
Minutes2,6162,284

3 · Individual skills

Where does each player have an advantage?

These figures describe the selected regular seasons. They provide context, not extra points added to the verdict. Green marks the better result for a metric, including lower turnover rates. Workload and shot-selection measures stay neutral. These rows are not votes toward the ranking.

Shooting

True shooting includes two-pointers, three-pointers, and free throws.

Shooting: Fat Lever and Gus Williams
MetricFat LeverGus Williams
True shooting percentage47.3%47.3%
Show more stats: Shooting
Shooting: Fat Lever and Gus Williams
MetricFat LeverGus Williams
Field-goal percentage44.1%Better result for this metric.42.8%
Three-point percentage31.6%Better result for this metric.25.9%
Free-throw percentage72.5%73.4%Better result for this metric.

Passing

Assist rate is the share of teammates’ made shots assisted while the player is on court. Read turnovers alongside offensive workload; lower turnover rate is generally better.

Passing: Fat Lever and Gus Williams
MetricFat LeverGus Williams
Assists per game7.5Better result for this metric.5.9

Rebounding

Rebound rate is the share of available rebounds collected while on court.

Rebounding: Fat Lever and Gus Williams
MetricFat LeverGus Williams
Rebounds per game5.4Better result for this metric.2.2

Scoring

Points per game describe scoring volume, not overall impact.

Scoring: Fat Lever and Gus Williams
MetricFat LeverGus Williams
Points per game13.8Better result for this metric.13.5

4 · Team context, not ranking inputs

What happened with and without them?

A verified with/without comparison is unavailable for this scope. We do not substitute another season’s observations.

Four separate questions

Impact, winning, playoffs, and awards

These are different ways to understand a career. Only Regular Season Impact determines the hussEyquation verdict. The other three sections add basketball context without adding points or changing the rank.

Ranking result

Regular Season Impact

Fat Lever has the higher model estimate for the 1985–86 season.

Fat LeverMetricGus Williams
+2.7LeadsSeason impactEstimated points per 100 possessions above that season's league average+1.0
#26LeadsSeason impact rank#65

This is the ranking result. It uses regular-season impact only. Team records, playoffs, and awards do not change it.

Context

Team Success

The advantages are split across the available measures.

Fat LeverMetricGus Williams
434Listed-team regular-season wins561Leads
48.1%LeadsListed-team winning percentage2.7%
250-win team seasons5Leads
060-win team seasons1Leads
8Playoff team seasons11Leads

Context only. Not included in Career Impact Rank. Final records for every listed team-season. A traded season can include more than one team.

Context

Playoff Résumé

Gus Williams leads every available measure below.

Fat LeverMetricGus Williams
8Playoff appearances10Leads
48Playoff games99Leads
23Team playoff wins52Leads
0Finals appearances2Leads
0Championships1Leads

Context only. Not included in Career Impact Rank. Team playoff results count only seasons when the player appeared in a playoff game.

Context

Awards

The advantages are split across the available measures.

Fat LeverMetricGus Williams
2All-Star2
0MVP0
1All-NBA2Leads
1LeadsAll-Defense0
0DPOY0
0Rookie of the Year0

Context only. Not included in Career Impact Rank. Major regular-season honors are recognition, not inputs to the impact ranking.

How each context field is counted
Listed-team regular-season wins
The sum of each listed team's final wins in every season the player represented that team.
Listed-team winning percentage
Those team wins divided by those teams' total regular-season games.
50- and 60-win team seasons
Listed team-seasons that finished with at least 50 or 60 wins. Shortened seasons are not projected to 82 games.
Team seasons reaching playoffs
Listed team-seasons in which that team qualified for the playoffs.
Playoff appearances and games
Postseasons and games in which the player appeared.
Team playoff wins
Team wins from those postseasons. They describe team results, not individual credit.
Finals appearances and championships
Seasons when the player appeared in the playoffs for the finalist or champion.
Awards
Recorded NBA selections and major regular-season honors. A zero means the source records none; Not available means the source field is missing.

Source and scope Basketball Reference, NBA seasons 1950–51 through 2025–26, accessed 2026-10-09.

Selected seasons

Era-centered impact

Both bars show the same NBA season. Missing or unqualified data does not establish a winner.

Fat LeverGus Williams

Estimated points per 100 possessions above that season's league average

1
Both bars show the same NBA season. Missing or unqualified data does not establish a winner.