21.9 composite · lower is better
Explore rankings
Player profile · BAL / DET
Ray Scott
Ray Scott advanced stats and career rankings
21.4 average league finish
1,362 total value
Bottom line · Career overview
Ray Scott ranks #164 all time. Across his three best seasons, his average league finish was #14.7. His full-career value ranks #323, so this placement is driven more by dominance than longevity. Explore Ray Scott's advanced stats by season, era-adjusted impact, workload, and historical comparisons.
Career standing
How Ray Scott 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
Career Composite21.9
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
- 21.9
- Qualified seasons
- 9
- All-time rank
- #164
Strongest seasons
Every season
Ray Scott 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1969–70Historical Defense Estimate | BAL | 31 | 73 | 1,393 | +0.25 | 66.7 | #48 | 79.1 | 59th | Modeled |
| 1968–69Historical Defense Estimate | BAL | 30 | 82 | 2,168 | +0.28 | 67.7 | #44 | 125.3 | 68th | Modeled |
| 1967–68Historical Defense Estimate | BAL | 29 | 81 | 2,924 | +0.67 | 70.0 | #37 | 197.6 | 79th | Modeled |
| 1966–67Historical Defense Estimate | BAL/DET | 28 | 72 | 2,446 | -0.06 | 67.0 | #34 | 120.7 | 71st | Modeled |
| 1965–66Historical Defense Estimate | DET | 27 | 79 | 2,652 | +1.90 | 93.5 | #7 | 265.7 | 94th | Modeled |
| 1964–65Historical Defense Estimate | DET | 26 | 66 | 2,167 | +0.57 | 75.3 | #23 | 138.4 | 74th | Modeled |
| 1963–64Historical Defense Estimate | DET | 25 | 80 | 2,964 | +1.23 | 85.9 | #14 | 230.9 | 86th | Modeled |
| 1962–63Historical Defense Estimate | DET | 24 | 76 | 2,538 | +0.05 | 69.2 | #29 | 130.6 | 73rd | Modeled |
| 1961–62Historical Defense Estimate | DET | 23 | 75 | 2,087 | -0.64 | 59.3 | #36 | 73.6 | 59th | Modeled |
Career movement
Ray Scott's career impact by season
Peak +1.90 in 1965–66 · 9 seasons · 21,339 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.
Era-centered box impactMinutesModeled estimate
Across-era box estimateWorkload
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.
Ray ScottJim Brewer
NBA season number · fixed impact axis −5 to +15
Similar career arcs
Players with careers similar to Ray Scott
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.
PF · All-Time Career #900
Jim Brewer
95%career match
94% season match · 1965–66 ↔ 1976–77PF · All-Time Career #119Tom Heinsohn
95%career match
95% season match · 1965–66 ↔ 1961–62PF · All-Time Career #183Rudy LaRusso
95%career match
98% season match · 1965–66 ↔ 1964–65SF · All-Time Career #1640Keith Van Horn
94%career match
91% season match · 1965–66 ↔ 2001–02PF · All-Time Career #121Vern Mikkelsen
93%career match
94% season match · 1965–66 ↔ 1954–55SF · All-Time Career #1783OG Anunoby
93%career match
93% season match · 1965–66 ↔ 2024–25Impact 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 →