Ish Smith
2010–11 to 2023–24 · 14 seasons
NBA player comparison
Ish Smith vs. P.J. Tucker: Career comparison
Regular-season verdict
Ish Smith ranks higher in career impact
P.J. Tucker
2006–07 to 2024–25 · 14 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.
#1608LeadsCareer Impact RankPeak-weighted regular-season rank#1726
+0.4LeadsPeak box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better+0.1
-0.4LeadsBest 5 average box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better-0.5
138.0LeadsBest 3 average finishAverage league place · lower is better161.3
+207 ptsPoints above replacementCumulative regular-season value+272 ptsLeads
223.3Best 10 average finishAverage league place · lower is better222.5Leads
Career Impact Rank places Ish Smith #1608 and P.J. Tucker #1726. It combines league finishes across each player's best three, five, and ten regular seasons, giving the most weight to the best three. P.J. Tucker had more total career value.
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 calculatedIsh Smith164.600 · No. 1,608P.J. Tucker178.807 · No. 1,726
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.
Ish Smith
164.600 composite · No. 1,608 all-time
| Window and finishes used | Average finish | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best 3No. 1132016–17Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 1402017–18Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 1612015–16Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate | 138.000 | 50% | 69.000 |
| Best 5No. 1132016–17Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 1402017–18Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 1612015–16Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 2062019–20Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 2292014–15Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate | 169.800 | 30% | 50.940 |
| Best 10No. 1132016–17Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 1402017–18Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 1612015–16Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 2062019–20Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 2292014–15Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 2582020–21No. 2652021–22No. 2752018–19Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 2832013–14Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 3032012–13Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate | 223.300 | 20% | 44.660 |
69.000 + 50.940 + 44.660= 164.600
P.J. Tucker
178.807 composite · No. 1,726 all-time
| Window and finishes used | Average finish | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best 3No. 1422014–15Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 1532013–14Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 1892012–13Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate | 161.333 | 50% | 80.667 |
| Best 5No. 1422014–15Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 1532013–14Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 1892012–13Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 1962016–17Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 2142015–16Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimate | 178.800 | 30% | 53.640 |
| Best 10No. 1422014–15Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 1532013–14Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 1892012–13Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 1962016–17Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 2142015–16Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 2242021–22No. 2252018–19Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 2692019–20Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 2802017–18Recorded box inputsIncludes bounded historical defense estimateNo. 3332020–21 | 222.500 | 20% | 44.500 |
80.667 + 53.640 + 44.500= 178.807
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 | Ish Smith | P.J. Tucker |
|---|---|---|
| Career Impact RankPeak-weighted regular-season rank | #1608Better result for this metric. | #1726 |
| Best 3 average finishAverage league place · lower is better | 138.0Better result for this metric. | 161.3 |
| Best 5 average finishAverage league place · lower is better | 169.8Better result for this metric. | 178.8 |
| Best 10 average finishAverage league place · lower is better | 223.3 | 222.5Better result for this metric. |
Show more stats: Impact
| Metric | Ish Smith | P.J. Tucker |
|---|---|---|
| Points-above-replacement rankAll-time rank in estimated regular-season points above replacement | #1169 | #1056Better result for this metric. |
| Peak box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better | +0.4Better result for this metric. | +0.1 |
| Best 3 average box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better | +0.1Better result for this metric. | -0.2 |
| Best 5 average box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better | -0.4Better result for this metric. | -0.5 |
| Best 10 average box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better | -1.2 | -1.2 |
| Points above replacementRegular season · fixed -2.0 replacement baseline · higher is better | +207 pts | +272 ptsBetter result for this metric. |
| Seasons ranked No. 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Top-five impact seasons | 0 | 0 |
| Top-ten impact seasons | 0 | 0 |
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 | Ish Smith | P.J. Tucker |
|---|---|---|
| Games | 805 | 886 |
| Minutes | 15,494 | 24,993 |
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 | Ish Smith | P.J. Tucker |
|---|---|---|
| True shooting percentage | 47.3% | 53.9%Better result for this metric. |
| True shootingAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile | 46.5% | 53.7%Better result for this metric. |
Show more stats: Shooting
| Metric | Ish Smith | P.J. Tucker |
|---|---|---|
| Field-goal percentage | 42.9%Better result for this metric. | 42.5% |
| Three-point percentage | 32.5% | 36.6%Better result for this metric. |
| Free-throw percentage | 67.6% | 75.0%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 | Ish Smith | P.J. Tucker |
|---|---|---|
| Assist rateAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile | 30.0%Better result for this metric. | 7.2% |
| Assists per game | 3.8Better result for this metric. | 1.4 |
Show more stats: Passing
| Metric | Ish Smith | P.J. Tucker |
|---|---|---|
| Turnover rateAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile | 14.0% | 13.2%Better result for this metric. |
Rebounding
Rebound rate is the share of available rebounds collected while on court.
| Metric | Ish Smith | P.J. Tucker |
|---|---|---|
| Rebound rateAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile | 6.9% | 10.6%Better result for this metric. |
| Rebounds per game | 2.4 | 5.4Better result for this metric. |
Defense
Steals and blocks describe only part of defense. They do not capture every stop, rotation, or matchup.
| Metric | Ish Smith | P.J. Tucker |
|---|---|---|
| Steal rateAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile | 1.8% | 1.9%Better result for this metric. |
Show more stats: Defense
| Metric | Ish Smith | P.J. Tucker |
|---|---|---|
| Block rateAverage across the best impact seasons selected for the model input profile | 1.1%Better result for this metric. | 0.9% |
Scoring
Points per game describe scoring volume, not overall impact.
| Metric | Ish Smith | P.J. Tucker |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 7.1Better result for this metric. | 6.6 |
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
Ish Smith ranks higher in career impact.
Ish SmithMetricP.J. Tucker
#1608LeadsCareer Impact RankPeak-weighted regular-season rank#1726
+0.4LeadsPeak box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better+0.1
-0.4LeadsBest 5 average box impactEra-adjusted points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better-0.5
+207 ptsPoints above replacementRegular season · fixed -2.0 replacement baseline · higher is better+272 ptsLeads
This is the ranking result. It uses regular-season impact only. Team records, playoffs, and awards do not change it.
Team Success
P.J. Tucker leads every available measure below.
Ish SmithMetricP.J. Tucker
686Listed-team regular-season wins738Leads
43.2%Listed-team winning percentage54.1%Leads
150-win team seasons7Leads
060-win team seasons1Leads
6Playoff 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
P.J. Tucker leads every available measure below.
Ish SmithMetricP.J. Tucker
6Playoff appearances9Leads
23Playoff games105Leads
25Team playoff wins72Leads
1Finals appearances1
1Championships1
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.
Ish SmithMetricP.J. Tucker
Not availableAll-StarNot available
Not availableMVPNot available
Not availableAll-NBANot available
Not availableAll-DefenseNot available
Not availableDPOYNot available
Not availableRookie of the YearNot available
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.
Ish SmithP.J. TuckerPeak 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.
Ish SmithNBA seasonP.J. Tucker
Season 1
Season 2
Season 3
Season 4
Season 5
Season 6
Season 7
Season 8
Season 9
Season 10
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.