ORtg
72.0
36th event percentileEstimated points produced per 100 possessions.
back_to_rankings
Unclaimed
event_player · FIBA U17 Basketball World Cup 2026
Fatima Diouf
CIV · b. 2009
//measurables
177 cm
HEIGHT
//15_second_scouting_read
data-led profileScoring load-led profile
Scoring load and Defensive activity are the clearest relative production signals in this event.
automated_event_signals
//event_signalScorer15.0 PPG · 97th event percentileComputed automatically from event data. Tap any signal to see the evidence behind it.
15.0 PPGScoring load · 97th event percentile
2.4 stocksDefensive activity · 68th event percentile
- 9.4
- HESI v2.1
- #174
- of 192
- 77%
- sample weight
Performance
2 rated events
Published event intelligence
Film
No public film
Movement and decisions remain unverified
Scouting
No final report
No human evaluation on file
Competition
2 events
Event context and history available
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 U17 Basketball World Cup2026
Rank #174 of 192 · Established
HESI
9.4
Event performance
10th event percentile
PI
22.0
Prospect index
10th event percentile
ORtg
72.0
Points / 100 poss.
36th event percentile
DRtg
103.7
Lower is better
4th event percentile
NRtg
-31.7
Two-way margin
17th event percentile
Offensive evidence
ORtg 72.0 · 36th event percentile
Defensive evidence
DRtg 103.7 · Stop% 47.7% · Team DRtg 101.1
Sample context
7 games · 197 minutes · 77% weight
//statistical_read · not_a_scout_grade
Scoring load-led profileevent-relative description
Scoring load and Defensive activity are the clearest relative production signals in this event.
Scoring load
15.0 PPG97th event percentile
Defensive activity
2.4 stocks68th event percentile
Questions for film
- 01
Will the rebounding translate against larger and more physical competition?
- 02
Which shot types and advantages are driving the efficiency profile?
Explore full efficiency + production profile
//impact_fingerprint
Where the profile separates
HESI performance
9.4
10th event percentile
Prospect index
22.0
10th event percentile
Offensive efficiency
72.0
36th event percentile
Defensive efficiency
103.7
4th event percentile
Two-way margin
-31.7
17th event percentile
Stop percentage
47.7%
20th event percentile
//role_and_production
How the production is shaped
Scoring load
15.0 PPG
97th event percentile
Creation
1.4 APG
58th event percentile
Rebounding
1.6 RPG
16th event percentile
Defensive activity
2.4 stocks
68th event percentile
Scoring efficiency
41.7% TS
49th event percentile
//rated_event_history
Every rated competition
Records are shown side by side, not as one trend line. Each event has a different player pool and competition context.
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.
event_signals
Automated Signals
The strongest patterns in this event sample, adjusted to the competition when event percentiles are available.
- P97
Scorer
15.0 PPG · 97th event percentile
//automated_interpretation · dean_oliver + event_stats
What the numbers suggest
HESI performance sits at the 10th event percentile. The Dean Oliver profile estimates 72.0 ORtg and 103.7 DRtg, producing a -31.7 Net Rating. The clearest relative strengths are scoring load and defensive activity. The lowest relative areas are defensive efficiency, rebounding, and two-way margin.
Relative strengths
- 97th event percentile
Scoring load
15.0 PPG
Scoring volume stands out relative to players in the same published event pool.
- 68th event percentile
Defensive activity
2.4 steals + blocks/G
Steals and blocks show strong recorded defensive activity, without proving on-ball technique by themselves.
Relative weaknesses
- 4th event percentile
Defensive efficiency
103.7 DRtg
The player DRtg is less favorable relative to this event pool; matchup and team context still require film.
- 16th event percentile
Rebounding
1.6 RPG
Rebounding production sits below much of the event pool and is an area to examine against role and size.
- 17th event percentile
Two-way margin
-31.7 NRtg
The current gap between estimated offensive and defensive efficiency trails much of this event pool.
//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
15.0 PPG
97th event percentileScoring volume per game.
True shooting
41.7%
49th event percentileScoring efficiency including twos, threes and free throws.
Effective FG
37.4%
48th event percentileField-goal efficiency with extra credit for made threes.
Field goals
29.7%
36th event percentileOverall field-goal percentage.
Three-point shooting
28.3%
context8.6 attempts per game
Free throws
64.7%
59th event percentileFree-throw conversion in this event.
Floor%
31.2%
30th event percentileEstimated share of possessions producing at least one point.
Assists
1.4 APG
58th event percentileRecorded passing production per game.
Defense and disruption
Estimated defensive efficiency, stops and recorded activity.
DRtg
103.7
4th event percentileEstimated points allowed per 100 possessions; lower is better.
Team DRtg
101.1
contextTeam defensive baseline used by the Dean Oliver estimate.
Defensive lift
-2.6
48th event percentilePlayer DRtg is higher than the team baseline.
Stop%
47.7%
20th event percentileEstimated share of defensive possessions ended through the player.
Recorded activity
2.4 STL+BLK
68th event percentileSteals plus blocks per game; it does not capture positioning or containment.
Estimated stops
39.6
contextDean Oliver estimated defensive stops across the event sample.
Two-way and all-around impact
Net impact, stabilized performance and supporting production.
Net Rating
-31.7
17th event percentileRaw ORtg minus DRtg.
Stabilized NRtg
-24.3
10th event percentileNet Rating pulled toward the event median according to sample size.
HESI performance
9.4
10th event percentileEvent-relative rank of stabilized two-way performance.
Prospect index
22.0
10th event percentileHESI performance with competition and age context.
PIE
1.8%
35th event percentileEstimated share of positive game events while on the floor.
Rebounds
1.6 RPG
16th event percentileTotal rebounding production per game.
Sample and confidence
How much evidence supports the estimates shown above.
Games
7
contextPublished games included in this event line.
Minutes
197.3
context28.2 minutes per game.
Sample weight
76.7%
contextHow strongly the model trusts raw Net Rating versus the event median.
Confidence
Established
contextModel confidence based on available games and minutes.
Event rank
#174
contextAmong 192 published players.
Team possessions
589.5
contextEstimated 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.
02
//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 U17 Basketball World Cup
World Cup · 2026
7
GP
15.0
PPG
1.6
RPG
1.4
APG
#174
RANK
//best_ranking_evidence · strongest_finish
FIBA U18 AfroBasket
Continental · 2026
#16
RANK
142
FIELD
89%
PERCENTILE
16.3
PPG
competition_history
All competitions
Every published competition this player appeared in, strongest first, with its complete verified stat line.
FIBA U17 Basketball World Cup
World Cup · 2026
#174/192view →
//quick_read
The line at a glance
15.0
PPG
1.6
RPG
1.4
APG
3.7
TOV/G
2.4
3PM/G
42%
TS%
//event_fingerprint
Performance against this field
Scoring
15.0
P97
Playmaking
1.4
P58
Rebounding
1.6
P16
True shooting
42%
P49
Two-way impact
-31.7
P17
Stops
48%
P20
//shooting_profile
Makes, attempts and efficiency
FG
Field goals
30%
33 made / 111 attempts
3PT
Three-pointers
28%
17 made / 60 attempts
FT
Free throws
65%
22 made / 34 attempts
Shot selection
54% of attempts from three
●2PA 51●3PA 60
//complete_box_score
Production by basketball action
scoring
105
PTS
15.0 / game
33–111
FGM–FGA
17–60
3PM–3PA
22–34
FTM–FTA
creation
10
AST
1.4 / game
26
TOV
3.7 / game
0.38×
AST:TOV
25
FD
rebounding
11
REB
1.6 / game
3
OREB
8
DREB
1.6
REB/G
defense
16
STL
2.3 / game
1
BLK
0.1 / game
14
PF
17
STL+BLK
2.4 / game
//hesi_and_dean_oliver
Efficiency and two-way impact
9.4
HESI
22.0
PI
72.0
ORtg
103.7
DRtg
-31.7
NRtg
-24.3
Stable NRtg
48%
Stop%
31%
Floor%
37%
eFG%
2%
PIE
101.1
Team DRtg
-2.6
Def. lift
FIBA U18 AfroBasket
Continental · 2026
#16/142view →
//quick_read
The line at a glance
16.3
PPG
3.8
RPG
1.0
APG
4.2
TOV/G
2.2
3PM/G
36%
TS%
//event_fingerprint
Performance against this field
Scoring
16.3
P98
Playmaking
1.0
P51
Rebounding
3.8
P57
True shooting
36%
P58
Two-way impact
+29.1
P83
Stops
68%
P64
//shooting_profile
Makes, attempts and efficiency
FG
Field goals
30%
35 made / 118 attempts
3PT
Three-pointers
25%
13 made / 53 attempts
FT
Free throws
38%
15 made / 40 attempts
Shot selection
45% of attempts from three
●2PA 65●3PA 53
//complete_box_score
Production by basketball action
scoring
98
PTS
16.3 / game
35–118
FGM–FGA
13–53
3PM–3PA
15–40
FTM–FTA
creation
6
AST
1.0 / game
25
TOV
4.2 / game
0.24×
AST:TOV
27
FD
rebounding
23
REB
3.8 / game
14
OREB
9
DREB
3.8
REB/G
defense
22
STL
3.7 / game
0
BLK
0.0 / game
12
PF
22
STL+BLK
3.7 / game
//hesi_and_dean_oliver
Efficiency and two-way impact
89.4
HESI
84.2
PI
75.0
ORtg
45.9
DRtg
+29.1
NRtg
+19.1
Stable NRtg
68%
Stop%
35%
Floor%
35%
eFG%
-3%
PIE
41.7
Team DRtg
-4.2
Def. lift
around_this_rank
Around this rank
Event-scoped ranking within FIBA U17 Basketball World Cup 2026 — 192 ranked players.
more_from_this_event
More from this event
Other ranked players from FIBA U17 Basketball World Cup 2026.
#1
United States
11.0 PPG 5.9 RPG 2.3 APG
//event_signalShooter43% 3PT on 3.0 3PA/GComputed automatically from event data. Tap any signal to see the evidence behind it.//event_signalDisruptor3.6 steals + blocks per gameComputed automatically from event data. Tap any signal to see the evidence behind it.#172
#173
#175
03
//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
16.3
PPG
3.8
RPG
1.0
APG
3.7
SPG
0.0
BPG
25%
3P%
36%
TS%
event_stats
Event production
Each line is scoped to one competition pool — not comparable across events.
FIBA U17 Basketball World Cup2026
7 GP · event rank #174
//quick_read
The line at a glance
15.0
PPG
1.6
RPG
1.4
APG
3.7
TOV/G
2.4
3PM/G
42%
TS%
//event_fingerprint
Performance against this field
Scoring
15.0
P97
Playmaking
1.4
P58
Rebounding
1.6
P16
True shooting
42%
P49
Two-way impact
-31.7
P17
Stops
48%
P20
//shooting_profile
Makes, attempts and efficiency
FG
Field goals
30%
33 made / 111 attempts
3PT
Three-pointers
28%
17 made / 60 attempts
FT
Free throws
65%
22 made / 34 attempts
Shot selection
54% of attempts from three
●2PA 51●3PA 60
//complete_box_score
Production by basketball action
scoring
105
PTS
15.0 / game
33–111
FGM–FGA
17–60
3PM–3PA
22–34
FTM–FTA
creation
10
AST
1.4 / game
26
TOV
3.7 / game
0.38×
AST:TOV
25
FD
rebounding
11
REB
1.6 / game
3
OREB
8
DREB
1.6
REB/G
defense
16
STL
2.3 / game
1
BLK
0.1 / game
14
PF
17
STL+BLK
2.4 / game
//hesi_and_dean_oliver
Efficiency and two-way impact
9.4
HESI
22.0
PI
72.0
ORtg
103.7
DRtg
-31.7
NRtg
-24.3
Stable NRtg
48%
Stop%
31%
Floor%
37%
eFG%
2%
PIE
101.1
Team DRtg
-2.6
Def. lift
FIBA U18 AfroBasket2026
6 GP · event rank #16
//quick_read
The line at a glance
16.3
PPG
3.8
RPG
1.0
APG
4.2
TOV/G
2.2
3PM/G
36%
TS%
//event_fingerprint
Performance against this field
Scoring
16.3
P98
Playmaking
1.0
P51
Rebounding
3.8
P57
True shooting
36%
P58
Two-way impact
+29.1
P83
Stops
68%
P64
//shooting_profile
Makes, attempts and efficiency
FG
Field goals
30%
35 made / 118 attempts
3PT
Three-pointers
25%
13 made / 53 attempts
FT
Free throws
38%
15 made / 40 attempts
Shot selection
45% of attempts from three
●2PA 65●3PA 53
//complete_box_score
Production by basketball action
scoring
98
PTS
16.3 / game
35–118
FGM–FGA
13–53
3PM–3PA
15–40
FTM–FTA
creation
6
AST
1.0 / game
25
TOV
4.2 / game
0.24×
AST:TOV
27
FD
rebounding
23
REB
3.8 / game
14
OREB
9
DREB
3.8
REB/G
defense
22
STL
3.7 / game
0
BLK
0.0 / game
12
PF
22
STL+BLK
3.7 / game
//hesi_and_dean_oliver
Efficiency and two-way impact
89.4
HESI
84.2
PI
75.0
ORtg
45.9
DRtg
+29.1
NRtg
+19.1
Stable NRtg
68%
Stop%
35%
Floor%
35%
eFG%
-3%
PIE
41.7
Team DRtg
-4.2
Def. lift
04
//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.