Jay Arnette
1963–64
48 games · 501 minutes
NBA player comparison
Jay Arnette vs. Tom Hoover: 1963–64 season
Regular-season verdict
Tom Hoover leads in impact for 1963–64
Tom Hoover ranks ahead of Jay Arnette in estimated impact while playing. This compares regular-season performance, not total contribution across the season.
Tom Hoover
1963–64
59 games · 988 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.
-5.7Impact estimateEstimated points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better-3.6Leads
#93Impact Rate rankLeague place · No. 1 is best#82Leads
48Games59
501Minutes988
3.8PPG4.8Leads
41.9%TS%46.7%Leads
Tom Hoover's estimated impact per 100 possessions was -3.6, compared with -5.7 for Jay Arnette. This compares their impact while playing, not their total contribution across the season. Both players are compared in the 1963–64 season using its published Impact Rate. A ranked comparison requires at least 450 minutes for each player.
Jay Arnette: 48 games and 501 minutes. Tom Hoover: 59 games and 988 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 · 1963–64 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 | Jay Arnette | Tom Hoover |
|---|---|---|
| Impact estimateEstimated points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better | -5.7 | -3.6Better result for this metric. |
| Impact Rate rankLeague place · No. 1 is best | #93 | #82Better result for this metric. |
Jay Arnette: verified lineup window unavailable. Tom Hoover: 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 | Jay Arnette | Tom Hoover |
|---|---|---|
| Games | 48 | 59 |
| Minutes | 501 | 988 |
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 | Jay Arnette | Tom Hoover |
|---|---|---|
| True shooting percentage | 41.9% | 46.7%Better result for this metric. |
Show more stats: Shooting
| Metric | Jay Arnette | Tom Hoover |
|---|---|---|
| Field-goal percentage | 36.2% | 41.3%Better result for this metric. |
| Three-point percentage | Unavailable | Unavailable |
| Free-throw percentage | 77.8%Better result for this metric. | 61.4% |
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 | Jay Arnette | Tom Hoover |
|---|---|---|
| Assists per game | 1.5Better result for this metric. | 0.6 |
Rebounding
Rebound rate is the share of available rebounds collected while on court.
| Metric | Jay Arnette | Tom Hoover |
|---|---|---|
| Rebounds per game | 1.1 | 5.6Better result for this metric. |
Scoring
Points per game describe scoring volume, not overall impact.
| Metric | Jay Arnette | Tom Hoover |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 3.8 | 4.8Better 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
Tom Hoover leads in impact for 1963–64.
Jay ArnetteMetricTom Hoover
-5.7Impact estimateEstimated points per 100 possessions above league average · higher is better-3.6Leads
#93Impact Rate rankLeague place · No. 1 is best#82Leads
This is the ranking result. It uses regular-season impact only. Team records, playoffs, and awards do not change it.
Team Success
Jay Arnette leads every available measure below.
Jay ArnetteMetricTom Hoover
215LeadsListed-team regular-season wins183
0.6%LeadsListed-team winning percentage0.5%
3Leads50-win team seasons2
260-win team seasons2
3LeadsPlayoff team seasons1
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
The advantages are split across the available measures.
Jay ArnetteMetricTom Hoover
2LeadsPlayoff appearances1
9LeadsPlayoff games4
5Team playoff wins7Leads
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.
Jay ArnetteMetricTom Hoover
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.
Selected seasons
Box impact
Both bars show the same NBA season. Missing or unqualified data does not establish a winner.
Jay ArnetteTom Hoover
Estimated points per 100 possessions above that season's league average