Hesi Sports Consulting//home_of_hesi_scout

Unclaimed

event_player · FIBA U18 Asia Cup 2026

LUKE EDWARD ATACADOR

Combo Guard · PHI, AUS · b. 2008

//15_second_scouting_read

data-led profile

Creation-led profile

Creation and Scoring efficiency are the clearest relative production signals in this event.

1.9 APGCreation · 74th event percentile

55.3% TSScoring efficiency · 74th event percentile

43.3
HESI v2.1: #107
of 188: 66%
sample weight

Performance

1 rated event

Published event intelligence

Film

No public film

Movement and decisions remain unverified

Scouting

No final report

No human evaluation on file

Competition

1 event

Event context and history available

profile_index

//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.

Open event intelligence

FIBA U18 Asia Cup2026

Rank #107 of 188 · Established

HESI v2.1

HESI

43.3

Event performance

43rd event percentile

46.2

Prospect index

43rd event percentile

ORtg

92.8

Points / 100 poss.

50th event percentile

DRtg

105.9

Lower is better

35th event percentile

NRtg

-13.1

Two-way margin

45th event percentile

Offensive evidence

ORtg 92.8 · 50th event percentile

Defensive evidence

DRtg 105.9 · Stop% 45.4% · Team DRtg 102.3

Sample context

7 games · 115 minutes · 66% weight

//statistical_read · not_a_scout_grade

Creation-led profileevent-relative description

Creation and Scoring efficiency are the clearest relative production signals in this event.

Creation

1.9 APG74th event percentile

Scoring efficiency

55.3% TS74th event percentile

Questions for film

01
Do the steals and blocks come from disciplined reads, physical tools, or higher-risk activity?
02
Will the rebounding translate against larger and more physical competition?

Explore full efficiency + production profile

//impact_fingerprint

Where the profile separates

HESI performance

43.3

43rd event percentile

Prospect index

46.2

43rd event percentile

Offensive efficiency

92.8

50th event percentile

Defensive efficiency

105.9

35th event percentile

Two-way margin

-13.1

45th event percentile

Stop percentage

45.4%

34th event percentile

//role_and_production

How the production is shaped

Scoring load

9.0 PPG

72nd event percentile

Creation

1.9 APG

74th event percentile

Rebounding

2.4 RPG

45th event percentile

Defensive activity

0.6 stocks

34th event percentile

Scoring efficiency

55.3% TS

74th 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.

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.

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 43rd event percentile. The Dean Oliver profile estimates 92.8 ORtg and 105.9 DRtg, producing a -13.1 Net Rating. The clearest relative strengths are creation, scoring efficiency, and scoring load. The lowest relative areas are defensive activity, defensive stops, and defensive efficiency.

Relative strengths

Creation
1.9 APG
74th event percentile
Assist production suggests a meaningful event-relative creation role; film must still separate advantage creation from connective passing.
Scoring efficiency
55.3% TS
74th event percentile
True shooting efficiency compares favorably with the published event pool.
Scoring load
9.0 PPG
72nd event percentile
Scoring volume stands out relative to players in the same published event pool.

Relative weaknesses

Defensive activity
0.6 steals + blocks/G
34th event percentile
Recorded steals and blocks are a lower relative area; this does not measure positioning, containment, or communication.
Defensive stops
45.4% Stop%
34th event percentile
The estimated defensive-stop share is a lower relative area in the available sample.
Defensive efficiency
105.9 DRtg
35th event percentile
The player DRtg is less favorable relative to this event pool; matchup and team context still require film.

//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.

ORtg

92.8

50th event percentile

Estimated points produced per 100 possessions.

Points

9.0 PPG

72nd event percentile

Scoring volume per game.

True shooting

55.3%

74th event percentile

Scoring efficiency including twos, threes and free throws.

Effective FG

48.9%

64th event percentile

Field-goal efficiency with extra credit for made threes.

Field goals

43.5%

67th event percentile

Overall field-goal percentage.

Three-point shooting

33.3%

context

2.1 attempts per game

Free throws

72.0%

58th event percentile

Free-throw conversion in this event.

Floor%

42.9%

56th event percentile

Estimated share of possessions producing at least one point.

Assists

1.9 APG

74th event percentile

Recorded passing production per game.

Defense and disruption

Estimated defensive efficiency, stops and recorded activity.

DRtg

105.9

35th event percentile

Estimated points allowed per 100 possessions; lower is better.

Team DRtg

102.3

context

Team defensive baseline used by the Dean Oliver estimate.

Defensive lift

-3.6

38th event percentile

Player DRtg is higher than the team baseline.

Stop%

45.4%

34th event percentile

Estimated share of defensive possessions ended through the player.

Recorded activity

0.6 STL+BLK

34th event percentile

Steals plus blocks per game; it does not capture positioning or containment.

Estimated stops

22.0

context

Dean Oliver estimated defensive stops across the event sample.

Two-way and all-around impact

Net impact, stabilized performance and supporting production.

Net Rating

-13.1

45th event percentile

Raw ORtg minus DRtg.

Stabilized NRtg

-11.4

43rd event percentile

Net Rating pulled toward the event median according to sample size.

HESI performance

43.3

43rd event percentile

Event-relative rank of stabilized two-way performance.

Prospect index

46.2

43rd event percentile

HESI performance with competition and age context.

PIE

3.9%

68th event percentile

Estimated share of positive game events while on the floor.

Rebounds

2.4 RPG

45th event percentile

Total rebounding production per game.

Sample and confidence

How much evidence supports the estimates shown above.

Games

context

Published games included in this event line.

Minutes

114.7

context

16.4 minutes per game.

Sample weight

65.7%

context

How strongly the model trusts raw Net Rating versus the event median.

Confidence

Established

context

Model confidence based on available games and minutes.

Event rank

#107

context

Among 188 published players.

Team possessions

592.3

context

Estimated team possessions supporting the defensive context.

model_limits

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.

//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 Asia Cup

Continental · 2026

9.0

PPG

2.4

RPG

1.9

APG

#107

RANK

competition_history

All competitions

Every published competition this player appeared in, strongest first, with its complete verified stat line.

FIBA U18 Asia Cup

Continental · 2026

#107/188view →

//quick_read

The line at a glance

9.0

PPG

2.4

RPG

1.9

APG

2.7

TOV/G

0.7

3PM/G

55%

TS%

//event_fingerprint

Performance against this field

Scoring

9.0

P72

Playmaking

1.9

P74

Rebounding

2.4

P45

True shooting

55%

P74

Two-way impact

-13.1

P45

Stops

45%

P34

//shooting_profile

Makes, attempts and efficiency

Field goals

44%

20 made / 46 attempts

3PT

Three-pointers

33%

5 made / 15 attempts

Free throws

72%

18 made / 25 attempts

Shot selection

33% of attempts from three

●2PA 31●3PA 15

//complete_box_score

Production by basketball action

scoring

PTS

9.0 / game

20–46

FGM–FGA

5–15

3PM–3PA

18–25

FTM–FTA

creation

AST

1.9 / game

TOV

2.7 / game

0.68×

AST:TOV

rebounding

REB

2.4 / game

OREB

DREB

2.4

REB/G

defense

STL

0.6 / game

BLK

0.0 / game

STL+BLK

0.6 / game

//hesi_and_dean_oliver

Efficiency and two-way impact

43.3

HESI

46.2

92.8

ORtg

105.9

DRtg

-13.1

NRtg

-11.4

Stable NRtg

45%

Stop%

43%

Floor%

49%

eFG%

PIE

102.3

Team DRtg

-3.6

Def. lift

around_this_rank

Around this rank

Event-scoped ranking within FIBA U18 Asia Cup 2026 — 188 ranked players.

rank_above · #106Joypreet Singh SidhuF · IND

//current_rank

#107

of 188 ranked

rank_below · #108Prince CariñoPF · PHI

more_from_this_event

Key stats

FIBA U18 Asia Cup · 2026 — scoped to this competition pool.

9.0

PPG

2.4

RPG

1.9

APG

0.6

SPG

0.0

BPG

33%

3P%

55%

TS%

event_stats