ORtg
80.3
61st event percentileEstimated points produced per 100 possessions.
back_to_rankings
Unclaimed
event_player
Abderahmen Bouguerra
TUN · b. 2009
Latest event year on file: 2026FIBA U18 AfroBasket
//measurables
205 cm
HEIGHT
//15_second_scouting_read
data-led profileScoring efficiency-led profile
Scoring efficiency and Rebounding are the clearest relative production signals in this event.
50.3% TSScoring efficiency · 84th event percentile
5.2 RPGRebounding · 71st event percentile
- 73.7
- HESI v2.1
- #35
- of 138
- 63%
- sample weight
01
//performance_intelligence
Event-scoped HESI impact, role, sample strength, team context, and the questions that still need film verification.
//athlete_dossier · event_intelligence
HESI v2.1 performance dossier
Event-scoped production and two-way impact. This is performance data—not a scout evaluation or universal OVR.
FIBA U18 AfroBasket2026
Rank #35 of 138 · Established
HESI
73.7
Event performance
74th event percentile
PI
71.7
Prospect index
75th event percentile
ORtg
80.3
Points / 100 poss.
61st event percentile
DRtg
67.0
Lower is better
79th event percentile
NRtg
+13.3
Two-way margin
74th event percentile
Offensive evidence
ORtg 80.3 · 61st event percentile
Defensive evidence
DRtg 67.0 · Stop% 78.6% · Team DRtg 72.7
Sample context
6 games · 102 minutes · 63% weight
//statistical_read · not_a_scout_grade
Scoring efficiency-led profileevent-relative description
Scoring efficiency and Rebounding are the clearest relative production signals in this event.
Scoring efficiency
50.3% TS84th event percentile
Rebounding
5.2 RPG71st event percentile
Questions for film
- 01
How stable is this profile over a larger game and minute sample?
- 02
Can the scoring load hold as defensive attention and role responsibility increase?
- 03
Does the film show repeatable advantage creation or mostly connective passing?
Explore full efficiency + production profile
//impact_fingerprint
Where the profile separates
HESI performance
73.7
74th event percentile
Prospect index
71.7
75th event percentile
Offensive efficiency
80.3
61st event percentile
Defensive efficiency
67.0
79th event percentile
Two-way margin
+13.3
74th event percentile
Stop percentage
78.6%
90th event percentile
//role_and_production
How the production is shaped
Scoring load
3.8 PPG
41st event percentile
Creation
0.8 APG
44th event percentile
Rebounding
5.2 RPG
71st event percentile
Defensive activity
1.0 stocks
54th event percentile
Scoring efficiency
50.3% TS
84th event percentile
How to read HESI, PI and Dean Oliver ratings
//reading_guide
How to read the dossier
HESI
Stabilized event performance
A 0–100 event-relative rank of stabilized Net Rating. Smaller samples are pulled toward neutral before players are ordered.
PI
Prospect index
80% HESI performance, 12% competition context and 8% age context. It remains an event-scoped prospect index—not a universal ranking.
ORtg · DRtg · NRtg
Dean Oliver impact
Estimated points created and allowed per 100 possessions, plus their net difference. Lower DRtg is better.
Percentiles compare this athlete only with the published, trust-gated player pool from this event. Missing evidence stays blank and is never converted to zero.
Automated signals and full statistical interpretation
event_signals
Automated Signals
The strongest patterns in this event sample, adjusted to the competition when event percentiles are available.
//automated_interpretation · dean_oliver + event_stats
What the numbers suggest
HESI performance sits at the 74th event percentile. The Dean Oliver profile estimates 80.3 ORtg and 67.0 DRtg, producing a +13.3 Net Rating. The clearest relative strengths are defensive stops, scoring efficiency, and defensive efficiency.
Relative strengths
- 90th event percentile
Defensive stops
78.6% Stop%
The estimated share of defensive possessions ended through the player’s contribution is relatively strong.
- 84th event percentile
Scoring efficiency
50.3% TS
True shooting efficiency compares favorably with the published event pool.
- 79th event percentile
Defensive efficiency
67.0 DRtg
The favorable defensive percentile reflects a lower player DRtg relative to this event pool.
Relative weaknesses
No available metric falls at or below the 40th event percentile. Film may still reveal skill-level weaknesses.
//complete_statistical_profile
Every verified signal in this event
Percentile labels compare the player with the same published event pool. Context-only values are shown without inventing a rank.
Offense and scoring
Efficiency, scoring load, shooting shape and creation.
Points
3.8 PPG
41st event percentileScoring volume per game.
True shooting
50.3%
84th event percentileScoring efficiency including twos, threes and free throws.
Effective FG
50.0%
88th event percentileField-goal efficiency with extra credit for made threes.
Field goals
36.4%
71st event percentileOverall field-goal percentage.
Three-point shooting
31.6%
context3.2 attempts per game
Free throws
50.0%
45th event percentileFree-throw conversion in this event.
Floor%
30.9%
37th event percentileEstimated share of possessions producing at least one point.
Assists
0.8 APG
44th event percentileRecorded passing production per game.
Defense and disruption
Estimated defensive efficiency, stops and recorded activity.
DRtg
67.0
79th event percentileEstimated points allowed per 100 possessions; lower is better.
Team DRtg
72.7
contextTeam defensive baseline used by the Dean Oliver estimate.
Defensive lift
+5.6
90th event percentilePlayer DRtg is lower than the team baseline.
Stop%
78.6%
90th event percentileEstimated share of defensive possessions ended through the player.
Recorded activity
1.0 STL+BLK
54th event percentileSteals plus blocks per game; it does not capture positioning or containment.
Estimated stops
31.7
contextDean Oliver estimated defensive stops across the event sample.
Two-way and all-around impact
Net impact, stabilized performance and supporting production.
Net Rating
+13.3
74th event percentileRaw ORtg minus DRtg.
Stabilized NRtg
+6.4
74th event percentileNet Rating pulled toward the event median according to sample size.
HESI performance
73.7
74th event percentileEvent-relative rank of stabilized two-way performance.
Prospect index
71.7
75th event percentileHESI performance with competition and age context.
PIE
7.2%
74th event percentileEstimated share of positive game events while on the floor.
Rebounds
5.2 RPG
71st event percentileTotal rebounding production per game.
Sample and confidence
How much evidence supports the estimates shown above.
Games
6
contextPublished games included in this event line.
Minutes
101.7
context16.9 minutes per game.
Sample weight
62.9%
contextHow strongly the model trusts raw Net Rating versus the event median.
Confidence
Established
contextModel confidence based on available games and minutes.
Event rank
#35
contextAmong 138 published players.
Team possessions
476.2
contextEstimated team possessions supporting the defensive context.
model_limits
- The available game and minute sample is still limited, so these relative findings may move.
- This is an automated event-relative interpretation, not a scout evaluation or universal player grade.
- Box scores cannot measure assignment difficulty, positioning, communication, decision quality, or off-ball value.
02
//film_room
Athlete submissions, event footage, and approved scout evidence, with provenance kept visible.
film_room
Tape & footage
Highlights and full games — sourced from the athlete and event coverage.
Featured clip
ClipStarts muted. Turn sound on in the player.
Clip
vs vs Mali U18 · 2026-09-24 · scout: Fahd Wael
YouTube · approved scout evidence
Open source03
//human_evaluation
Manual scout observations stay distinct from statistical signals, with viewing basis and access level shown honestly.
//scouting_report · evidence_basis
Scouting report on file
Fahd Wael
Report date: 2026-09-24
verified_human_evaluation
Basketball verdict
Independent scout evaluation · role and translation first
// projected_role
forward · secondary creator / connector · spacing / shooting option · closeout attacker
forward · secondary creator / connector · spacing / shooting option · closeout attacker. No separator is established yet Primary pressure points: Offensive rebounding, Gap help, Low-defender rotations.
Now · ForwardProjects · Forward
Translatable strengths
Not confirmed in this report.
Exploitable weaknesses
- · Offensive rebounding
- · Gap help
- · Low-defender rotations
Offensive translation
Projects to retain a primary role as a secondary creator / connector. Projects to retain a primary role as a spacing / shooting option. Projects to retain a primary role as a closeout attacker. Projects to retain a primary role as a screen-and-roll finisher.
Defensive assignments
primary gap / nail helper (grade 1.5; assignment confirmed; workload can expand). primary switch defender (grade 3; assignment confirmed; workload should hold). primary post matchup defender (grade 3; assignment confirmed; workload should hold). primary rim protector (grade 1; assignment confirmed; workload can expand).
Best offensive fit
Offensive scheme fit remains unresolved.
Best defensive fit
Defensive scheme fit requires another assignment-confirmed viewing.
Limiting environments
No limiting environment should be stated until role evidence is representative.
Development priorities
Offensive rebounding · Gap help
evidence_and_projection
Why the verdict holds
evidence_strength
strong
Limited representative evidence attached
pathway_hypothesis
NCAA D2
NCAA Division II hypothesis · experimental uncalibrated
Experimental · not outcome-calibrated
hesi_reconciliation
Scout view × current production
Agreement and conflict stay visible; they are not averaged into one score.
Current event production
inconclusive73.7 performance rating · rank 35 · 6 games
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
Estimated offensive efficiency
inconclusiveORtg 80.3 · descriptive event context, not a role projection
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
Floor percentage context
inconclusive30.9% · possession outcome context
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
Stop percentage context
inconclusive78.6% · box-score estimate with team and role context
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
next_evaluation_assignment
Limited representative evidence attached
04
//competition_evidence
Where the production happened, how strong the event pool was, and every published competition supporting the profile.
competition_context
Competition
Primary competition is the highest-stature event. Best ranking evidence is the strongest event-relative finish — they may come from different events.
//primary_competition · highest_stature
FIBA U18 AfroBasket
Continental · 2026
6
GP
3.8
PPG
5.2
RPG
0.8
APG
#35
RANK
competition_history
All competitions
Published competitions, strongest first. Open the statistical record for the complete event line.
FIBA U18 AfroBasket
Continental · 2026
#35/138Event board →
6
GP
3.8
PPG
5.2
RPG
0.8
APG
FIBA U16 AfroBasket
Continental · 2025
#38/131Event board →
5
GP
4.6
PPG
8.6
RPG
1.2
APG
FIBA U18 AfroBasket 2026 Qualifiers — Men — Zone 1
Regional · 2026
#17/34Event board →
4
GP
2.3
PPG
4.3
RPG
1.5
APG
event_context
Event context
FIBA U18 AfroBasket 2026 · 138 ranked players
rank_above · #34Zeineldin Ahmed Aly Mohamed Aly AbdeldaimEgyptrank_below · #36Joachim Barthelemy BassonG · Cameroon
//current_rank
#35
of 138 ranked
#1
Shooting Guard · Côte d'Ivoire
17.5 PPG 4.5 RPG 1.3 APG
//event_signalTop 3#1 event rankComputed automatically from event data. Tap any signal to see the evidence behind it.#33
05
//statistical_record
Complete event-specific production lines for auditing the read without flattening different competitions together.
key_stats
Key stats
FIBA U18 AfroBasket · 2026 — scoped to this competition pool.
6
GP
3.8
PPG
5.2
RPG
0.8
APG
0.7
SPG
0.3
BPG
32%
3P%
50%
TS%
event_stats
Event production
Each line is scoped to one competition pool — not comparable across events.
FIBA U18 AfroBasket2026
6 GP · event rank #35
//quick_read
The line at a glance
3.8
PPG
5.2
RPG
0.8
APG
1.3
TOV/G
1.0
3PM/G
50%
TS%
//event_fingerprint
Performance against this field
Scoring
3.8
P41
Playmaking
0.8
P44
Rebounding
5.2
P71
True shooting
50%
P84
Two-way impact
+13.3
P74
Stops
79%
P90
//shooting_profile
Makes, attempts and efficiency
FG
Field goals
36%
8 made / 22 attempts
3PT
Three-pointers
32%
6 made / 19 attempts
FT
Free throws
50%
1 made / 2 attempts
Shot selection
86% of attempts from three
●2PA 3●3PA 19
//complete_box_score
Production by basketball action
scoring
23
PTS
3.8 / game
8–22
FGM–FGA
6–19
3PM–3PA
1–2
FTM–FTA
creation
5
AST
0.8 / game
8
TOV
1.3 / game
0.63×
AST:TOV
6
FD
rebounding
31
REB
5.2 / game
3
OREB
28
DREB
5.2
REB/G
defense
4
STL
0.7 / game
2
BLK
0.3 / game
11
PF
6
STL+BLK
1.0 / game
//hesi_and_dean_oliver
Efficiency and two-way impact
73.7
HESI
71.7
PI
80.3
ORtg
67.0
DRtg
+13.3
NRtg
+6.4
Stable NRtg
79%
Stop%
31%
Floor%
50%
eFG%
7%
PIE
72.7
Team DRtg
+5.6
Def. lift
FIBA U18 AfroBasket 2026 Qualifiers — Men — Zone 12026
4 GP · event rank #17
//quick_read
The line at a glance
2.3
PPG
4.3
RPG
1.5
APG
0.3
TOV/G
0.8
3PM/G
27%
TS%
//event_fingerprint
Performance against this field
Scoring
2.3
P29
Playmaking
1.5
P56
Rebounding
4.3
P65
True shooting
27%
P22
//shooting_profile
Makes, attempts and efficiency
FG
Field goals
19%
3 made / 16 attempts
3PT
Three-pointers
20%
3 made / 15 attempts
FT
Free throws
0%
0 made / 2 attempts
Shot selection
94% of attempts from three
●2PA 1●3PA 15
//complete_box_score
Production by basketball action
scoring
9
PTS
2.3 / game
3–16
FGM–FGA
3–15
3PM–3PA
0–2
FTM–FTA
creation
6
AST
1.5 / game
1
TOV
0.3 / game
6.00×
AST:TOV
—
FD
rebounding
17
REB
4.3 / game
5
OREB
12
DREB
4.3
REB/G
defense
4
STL
1.0 / game
4
BLK
1.0 / game
11
PF
8
STL+BLK
2.0 / game
//hesi_and_dean_oliver
Efficiency and two-way impact
28%
eFG%
2%
PIE
FIBA U16 AfroBasket2025
5 GP · event rank #38
//quick_read
The line at a glance
4.6
PPG
8.6
RPG
1.2
APG
3.4
TOV/G
0.2
3PM/G
40%
TS%
//event_fingerprint
Performance against this field
Scoring
4.6
P51
Playmaking
1.2
P60
Rebounding
8.6
P87
True shooting
40%
P73
//shooting_profile
Makes, attempts and efficiency
FG
Field goals
39%
10 made / 26 attempts
3PT
Three-pointers
50%
1 made / 2 attempts
FT
Free throws
33%
2 made / 6 attempts
Shot selection
8% of attempts from three
●2PA 24●3PA 2
//complete_box_score
Production by basketball action
scoring
23
PTS
4.6 / game
10–26
FGM–FGA
1–2
3PM–3PA
2–6
FTM–FTA
creation
6
AST
1.2 / game
17
TOV
3.4 / game
0.35×
AST:TOV
—
FD
rebounding
43
REB
8.6 / game
17
OREB
26
DREB
8.6
REB/G
defense
6
STL
1.2 / game
3
BLK
0.6 / game
20
PF
9
STL+BLK
1.8 / game
//hesi_and_dean_oliver
Efficiency and two-way impact
40%
eFG%
1%
PIE
06
//player_context
Biography, achievements, public identity, and profile ownership provide context without entering the performance rating.
player_context
The person behind the numbers
Background supplied by the athlete or verified profile source. Performance ratings remain separate from biography and achievements.
claim_this_profile
Is this you?
This profile was auto-generated from public tournament data. Claim it to connect your highlight reel, get scouted, and own your story on HESI.
data_source · fiba — statistics retain their original event attribution.