12.3 composite · lower is better
Explore rankings
Player profile · DAL / DEN / POR

Fat Lever
Fat Lever advanced stats and career rankings
9.0 average league finish
3,267 total value
Bottom line · Career overview
Fat Lever ranks #77 all time. 4 top-ten finishes give him a sustained run near the top of the league. His full-career value ranks #74 across 11 seasons, supporting the same overall standing. Explore Fat Lever's advanced stats by season, era-adjusted impact, workload, and historical comparisons.
Career standing
How Fat Lever ranks all time
These are league placements, not raw scores. Each season is judged against that season's qualified player pool.
Best in the league
Elite finishes
Upper-tier finishes
Standard deviations across scoring seasons
Equal average of Best 3, Prime 5, and Best 10 league finishes. The overlapping windows make this explicitly peak-weighted. Lower is better.
- Best 3 weight
- 63.3%
- Score
- 12.3
- Qualified seasons
- 10
- All-time rank
- #77
Every season
Fat Lever advanced stats by season
Era-centered box impact supports comparisons through time. Impact Rate and its rank compare players only within that season.
| Season | Team | Age | GP | MP | Era-centered box impact | Impact Rate | Rate rank | Season Value | Value percentile | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1993–94Historical Defense Estimate | DAL | 33 | 81 | 1,947 | +1.74 | 86.6 | #40 | 143.5 | 79th | Strong |
| 1991–92Historical Defense Estimate | DAL | 31 | 31 | 884 | +1.79 | 84.1 | #47 | 66.0 | 60th | Established |
| 1990–91Historical Defense Estimate | DAL | 30 | 4 | 86 | -5.65 | — | — | -6.2 | — | Limited |
| 1989–90Historical Defense Estimate | DEN | 29 | 79 | 2,832 | +5.94 | 96.9 | #10 | 493.5 | 97th | Strong |
| 1988–89Historical Defense Estimate | DEN | 28 | 71 | 2,745 | +6.45 | 98.1 | #6 | 519.8 | 98th | Strong |
| 1987–88Historical Defense Estimate | DEN | 27 | 82 | 3,061 | +6.23 | 98.0 | #6 | 553.4 | 98th | Strong |
| 1986–87Historical Defense Estimate | DEN | 26 | 82 | 3,054 | +6.66 | 98.8 | #4 | 585.2 | 99th | Strong |
| 1985–86Historical Defense Estimate | DEN | 25 | 78 | 2,616 | +2.65 | 90.2 | #26 | 270.6 | 93rd | Strong |
| 1984–85Historical Defense Estimate | DEN | 24 | 82 | 2,559 | +3.32 | 92.9 | #19 | 305.3 | 94th | Strong |
| 1983–84Historical Defense Estimate | POR | 23 | 81 | 2,010 | +1.99 | 88.3 | #30 | 169.0 | 84th | Strong |
| 1982–83Historical Defense Estimate | POR | 22 | 81 | 2,020 | +1.94 | 85.4 | #38 | 167.4 | 80th | Strong |
Career movement
Fat Lever's career impact by season
Peak +6.66 in 1986–87 · 11 seasons · 23,814 minutes
The same historical box-score model is used for every season, making the career shape comparable through time. This is separate from the current lineup-context ranking.
Career comparison
Compare the shape, not the calendar
Align by NBA experience to compare season one with season one, or by age to compare players at the same stage of life.
NBA season number · fixed impact axis −5 to +15
Similar career arcs
Players with careers similar to Fat Lever
The score compares era-centered box impact, peak, prime, workload, career length, position, and trajectory aligned by NBA experience. It describes career shape, not playing style or equal ability.
Mookie Blaylock
89%career match
96% season match · 1986–87 ↔ 1993–94PG · All-Time Career #92Mark Price
88%career match
94% season match · 1986–87 ↔ 1989–90PG · All-Time Career #110Terrell Brandon
87%career match
93% season match · 1986–87 ↔ 1996–97PG · All-Time Career #86Damian Lillard
86%career match
94% season match · 1986–87 ↔ 2017–18PG · All-Time Career #17Oscar Robertson
86%career match
93% season match · 1986–87 ↔ 1964–65PG · All-Time Career #71Gus Williams
85%career match
91% season match · 1986–87 ↔ 1981–82Impact Rate shows how strong a player was compared with everyone else that season. Season Value adds how much he played. The career ranking rewards a high peak, a long prime, and repeated seasons near the top. Older seasons use clearly labeled estimates where the NBA did not record today's full set of statistics. Read how every ranking works →