Grant Long
1993–94
69 games · 2,201 minutes
NBA player comparison
Grant Long vs. Tom Chambers: 1993–94 season
Regular-season verdict
Grant Long leads in impact for 1993–94
Grant Long ranks ahead of Tom Chambers in estimated impact while playing. This compares regular-season performance, not total contribution across the season.
Tom Chambers
1993–94
80 games · 1,838 minutes
Impact comparison
Impact estimate is measured in points per 100 possessions above league average. Zero is average; higher is better. Impact Rate rank is a league place, not a 0–100 score: No. 1 is best.
-1.1LeadsImpact estimateEstimated points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better-2.8
#163LeadsImpact Rate rankLeague place · No. 1 is best#247
69Games80
2,201Minutes1,838
11.4LeadsPPG11.2
50.7%TS%51.2%Leads
Grant Long's estimated impact per 100 possessions was -1.1, compared with -2.8 for Tom Chambers. This compares their impact while playing, not their total contribution across the season. Both players are compared in the 1993–94 season using its published Impact Rate. A ranked comparison requires at least 450 minutes for each player.
Grant Long: 69 games and 2,201 minutes. Tom Chambers: 80 games and 1,838 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.
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.
Full comparison · 1993–94 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.
| Metric | Grant Long | Tom Chambers |
|---|---|---|
| Impact estimateEstimated points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better | -1.1Better result for this metric. | -2.8 |
| Impact Rate rankLeague place · No. 1 is best | #163Better result for this metric. | #247 |
Grant Long: verified lineup window unavailable. Tom Chambers: 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.
| Metric | Grant Long | Tom Chambers |
|---|---|---|
| Games | 69 | 80 |
| Minutes | 2,201 | 1,838 |
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.
| Metric | Grant Long | Tom Chambers |
|---|---|---|
| True shooting percentage | 50.7% | 51.2%Better result for this metric. |
Show more stats: Shooting
| Metric | Grant Long | Tom Chambers |
|---|---|---|
| Field-goal percentage | 44.6%Better result for this metric. | 44.0% |
| Three-point percentage | 16.7% | 31.1%Better result for this metric. |
| Free-throw percentage | 78.6% | 78.6% |
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 | Grant Long | Tom Chambers |
|---|---|---|
| Assists per game | 2.5Better result for this metric. | 1.0 |
Rebounding
Rebound rate is the share of available rebounds collected while on court.
| Metric | Grant Long | Tom Chambers |
|---|---|---|
| Rebounds per game | 7.2Better result for this metric. | 4.1 |
Scoring
Points per game describe scoring volume, not overall impact.
| Metric | Grant Long | Tom Chambers |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 11.4Better result for this metric. | 11.2 |
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
Grant Long leads in impact for 1993–94.
Grant LongMetricTom Chambers
-1.1LeadsImpact estimateEstimated points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better-2.8
#163LeadsImpact Rate rankLeague place · No. 1 is best#247
This is the ranking result. It uses regular-season impact only. Team records, playoffs, and awards do not change it.
Team Success
Tom Chambers leads every available measure below.
Grant LongMetricTom Chambers
527Listed-team regular-season wins706Leads
41.2%Listed-team winning percentage53.8%Leads
150-win team seasons8Leads
060-win team seasons2Leads
7Playoff 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.
Playoff Résumé
Tom Chambers leads every available measure below.
Grant LongMetricTom Chambers
7Playoff appearances10Leads
42Playoff games108Leads
15Team playoff wins55Leads
0Finals appearances1Leads
0Championships0
Context only. Not included in Career Impact Rank. Team playoff results count only seasons when the player appeared in a playoff game.
Awards
No recorded measure separates these careers.
Grant LongMetricTom Chambers
Not availableAll-Star4
Not availableMVP0
Not availableAll-NBA2
Not availableAll-Defense0
Not availableDPOY0
Not availableRookie 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
Box impact
Both bars show the same NBA season. Missing or unqualified data does not establish a winner.
Grant LongTom Chambers
Estimated points per 100 possessions above that season's league average