Fat Lever
1982–83 to 1993–94 · 11 seasons
NBA player comparison
Fat Lever vs. Mark Price: Career comparison
Regular-season verdict
Fat Lever ranks higher in career impact
Mark Price
1986–87 to 1997–98 · 12 seasons
Impact comparison
Box impact estimates points per 100 possessions above each season's league average. Higher is better. Career ranks and average league finishes work the other way: lower is better.
#66LeadsCareer Impact RankPeak-weighted regular-season rank#76
+6.7Peak box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better+6.8Leads
+5.7Best 5 average box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better+6.1Leads
5.3LeadsBest 3 average finishAverage league place · lower is better7.0
+3,267 ptsLeadsPoints above replacementCumulative regular-season value+2,508 pts
4Top-10 impact seasons6Leads
Career Impact Rank places Fat Lever #66 and Mark Price #76. It combines league finishes across each player's best three, five, and ten regular seasons, giving the most weight to the best three. Mark Price had the higher single-season impact estimate.
Regular season only. Impact figures are estimates; small gaps are not exact. Playoffs, awards and titles do not determine the verdict.
Career Impact RankSee exactly how both rankings are calculatedFat Lever9.887 · No. 66Mark Price11.380 · No. 76
Only the three league-finish windows below determine Career Impact Rank. Career Value and peak impact are separate measures; neither adds points to this calculation. Lower composite scores rank higher.
Fat Lever
9.887 composite · No. 66 all-time
| Window and finishes used | Average finish | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best 3No. 41986–87Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 61987–88Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 61988–89Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate | 5.333 | 50% | 2.667 |
| Best 5No. 41986–87Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 61987–88Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 61988–89Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 101989–90Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 191984–85Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate | 9.000 | 30% | 2.700 |
| Best 10No. 41986–87Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 61987–88Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 61988–89Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 101989–90Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 191984–85Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 261985–86Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 301983–84Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 381982–83Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 401993–94Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 471991–92Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate | 22.600 | 20% | 4.520 |
2.667 + 2.700 + 4.520= 9.887
Mark Price
11.380 composite · No. 76 all-time
| Window and finishes used | Average finish | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best 3No. 61990–91Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 71993–94Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 81991–92Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate | 7.000 | 50% | 3.500 |
| Best 5No. 61990–91Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 71993–94Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 81991–92Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 91989–90Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 91992–93Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate | 7.800 | 30% | 2.340 |
| Best 10No. 61990–91Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 71993–94Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 81991–92Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 91989–90Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 91992–93Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 91994–95Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 121988–89Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 291987–88Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 891996–97Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 991997–98Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate | 27.700 | 20% | 5.540 |
3.500 + 2.340 + 5.540= 11.380
Averages, contributions, and totals are displayed to three decimal places. The ranking calculation keeps full source precision. Read the full method →
Full comparison · Career comparison
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?
Career Impact Rank compares entire regular-season careers across NBA history. It combines average league places across the best three, five, and ten seasons, weighted 50%, 30%, and 20%. A lower rank or average place is better.
| Metric | Fat Lever | Mark Price |
|---|---|---|
| Career Impact RankPeak-weighted regular-season rank | #66Better result for this metric. | #76 |
| Best 3 average finishAverage league place · lower is better | 5.3Better result for this metric. | 7.0 |
| Best 5 average finishAverage league place · lower is better | 9.0 | 7.8Better result for this metric. |
| Best 10 average finishAverage league place · lower is better | 22.6Better result for this metric. | 27.7 |
Show more stats: Impact
| Metric | Fat Lever | Mark Price |
|---|---|---|
| Points-above-replacement rankAll-time rank in estimated regular-season points above replacement | #74Better result for this metric. | #129 |
| Peak box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better | +6.7 | +6.8Better result for this metric. |
| Best 3 average box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better | +6.4 | +6.4 |
| Best 5 average box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better | +5.7 | +6.1Better result for this metric. |
| Best 10 average box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better | +3.9 | +4.4Better result for this metric. |
| Points above replacementRegular season · fixed -2.0 replacement baseline · higher is better | +3,267 ptsBetter result for this metric. | +2,508 pts |
| Seasons ranked No. 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Top-five impact seasons | 1Better result for this metric. | 0 |
| Top-ten impact seasons | 4 | 6Better result for this metric. |
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.
| Metric | Fat Lever | Mark Price |
|---|---|---|
| Games | 752 | 722 |
| Minutes | 23,814 | 21,560 |
3 · Individual skills
Where does each player have an advantage?
These are each player's averages across up to ten best seasons. Career Impact Rank gives the Best 3, Best 5, and Best 10 average league finishes 50%, 30%, and 20% window weights, giving the most weight to the highest peak. The model accounts for position, role, pace, playing time, and team results. 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.
| Metric | Fat Lever | Mark Price |
|---|---|---|
| True shooting percentage | 49.6% | 58.6%Better result for this metric. |
| True shootingAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile | 48.9% | 58.8%Better result for this metric. |
Show more stats: Shooting
| Metric | Fat Lever | Mark Price |
|---|---|---|
| Field-goal percentage | 44.7% | 47.2%Better result for this metric. |
| Three-point percentage | 31.0% | 40.2%Better result for this metric. |
| Free-throw percentage | 77.1% | 90.4%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.
| Metric | Fat Lever | Mark Price |
|---|---|---|
| Assist rateAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile | 25.6% | 38.0%Better result for this metric. |
| Assists per game | 6.2 | 6.7Better result for this metric. |
Show more stats: Passing
| Metric | Fat Lever | Mark Price |
|---|---|---|
| Turnover rateAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile | 12.4%Better result for this metric. | 16.7% |
Rebounding
Rebound rate is the share of available rebounds collected while on court.
| Metric | Fat Lever | Mark Price |
|---|---|---|
| Rebound rateAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile | 9.7%Better result for this metric. | 5.0% |
| Rebounds per game | 6.0Better result for this metric. | 2.6 |
Defense
Steals and blocks describe only part of defense. They do not capture every stop, rotation, or matchup.
| Metric | Fat Lever | Mark Price |
|---|---|---|
| Steal rateAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile | 3.2%Better result for this metric. | 2.1% |
Show more stats: Defense
| Metric | Fat Lever | Mark Price |
|---|---|---|
| Block rateAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile | 0.5%Better result for this metric. | 0.2% |
Scoring
Points per game describe scoring volume, not overall impact.
| Metric | Fat Lever | Mark Price |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 13.9 | 15.2Better result for this metric. |
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.
Regular Season Impact
Fat Lever ranks higher in career impact.
Fat LeverMetricMark Price
#66LeadsCareer Impact RankPeak-weighted regular-season rank#76
+6.7Peak box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better+6.8Leads
+5.7Best 5 average box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better+6.1Leads
+3,267 ptsLeadsPoints above replacementRegular season · fixed -2.0 replacement baseline · higher is better+2,508 pts
This is the ranking result. It uses regular-season impact only. Team records, playoffs, and awards do not change it.
Team Success
The advantages are split across the available measures.
Fat LeverMetricMark Price
434Listed-team regular-season wins516Leads
48.1%Listed-team winning percentage52.4%Leads
250-win team seasons3Leads
060-win team seasons0
8LeadsPlayoff team seasons7
Context only. Not included in Career Impact Rank. Final records for every listed team-season. A traded season can include more than one team.
Playoff Résumé
Fat Lever leads every available measure below.
Fat LeverMetricMark Price
8LeadsPlayoff appearances7
48LeadsPlayoff games47
23LeadsTeam playoff wins19
0Finals appearances0
0Championships0
Context only. Not included in Career Impact Rank. Team playoff results count only seasons when the player appeared in a playoff game.
Awards
The advantages are split across the available measures.
Fat LeverMetricMark Price
2All-Star4Leads
0MVP0
1All-NBA4Leads
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.
Career Shape Explorer
How the careers developed
Follow every regular season by NBA experience or age. This view describes the path; it does not create another verdict.
Fat LeverMark PricePeak seasonHistorical source qualification
Estimated points per 100 possessions above that season's league average
Striped bars mark seasons with fewer than 40 games. A dashed mark means that player had no season at the aligned point.
Season-by-season evidenceRead both careers at the same stage
Every observed season keeps its age, era-centered impact estimate, league rank when qualified, career-stage label, and exact evidence link. A missing career point stays missing.
Fat LeverNBA seasonMark Price
Season 1
Season 2
Season 3
Season 4
Season 5
Season 6
Season 7
Season 8
Season 9
Season 10
Season 11
Observed values come from the accepted season comparison record. Historical source qualifications stay attached to affected seasons. Missing means no NBA season exists at that aligned point; it is never interpolated. Missing is not the same as estimated.