back_to_rankings
Brandina Kyalimpa portrait
Unclaimed
event_player · FIBA U18 AfroBasket 2026

Brandina Kyalimpa

UGA · b. 2009

//15_second_scouting_read

data-led profile

Two-way event impact

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

37.0% TSScoring efficiency · 60th event percentile

1.2 stocksDefensive activity · 36th event percentile

63.1
HESI v2.1
#51
of 142
33%
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

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.

Open event intelligence

FIBA U18 AfroBasket2026

Rank #51 of 142 · Limited sample

HESI v2.1

HESI

63.1

Event performance

63rd event percentile

PI

63.2

Prospect index

64th event percentile

ORtg

79.2

Points / 100 poss.

81st event percentile

DRtg

57.8

Lower is better

73rd event percentile

NRtg

+21.4

Two-way margin

79th event percentile

Offensive evidence

ORtg 79.2 · 81st event percentile

Defensive evidence

DRtg 57.8 · Stop% 84.0% · Team DRtg 64.0

Sample context

5 games · 30 minutes · 33% weight

//statistical_read · not_a_scout_grade

Two-way event impactevent-relative description

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

Scoring efficiency

37.0% TS60th event percentile

Defensive activity

1.2 stocks36th event percentile

Questions for film

  1. 01

    How stable is this profile over a larger game and minute sample?

  2. 02

    Does the film show repeatable advantage creation or mostly connective passing?

  3. 03

    Will the rebounding translate against larger and more physical competition?

Explore full efficiency + production profile

//impact_fingerprint

Where the profile separates

HESI performance

63.1

63rd event percentile

Prospect index

63.2

64th event percentile

Offensive efficiency

79.2

81st event percentile

Defensive efficiency

57.8

73rd event percentile

Two-way margin

+21.4

79th event percentile

Stop percentage

84.0%

88th event percentile

//role_and_production

How the production is shaped

Scoring load

2.4 PPG

34th event percentile

Creation

0.0 APG

6th event percentile

Rebounding

1.0 RPG

15th event percentile

Defensive activity

1.2 stocks

36th event percentile

Scoring efficiency

37.0% TS

60th 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.

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 63rd event percentile. The Dean Oliver profile estimates 79.2 ORtg and 57.8 DRtg, producing a +21.4 Net Rating. The clearest relative strengths are defensive stops, offensive efficiency, and two-way margin. The lowest relative areas are creation, rebounding, and scoring load.

Relative strengths

  1. Defensive stops

    84.0% Stop%

    88th event percentile

    The estimated share of defensive possessions ended through the player’s contribution is relatively strong.

  2. Offensive efficiency

    79.2 ORtg

    81st event percentile

    The Dean Oliver estimate places offensive production per 100 possessions among the stronger results in this event.

  3. Two-way margin

    +21.4 NRtg

    79th event percentile

    The gap between estimated offensive and defensive efficiency is a clear positive separator in this event.

Relative weaknesses

  1. Creation

    0.0 APG

    6th event percentile

    Assist production is a lower relative area; the model cannot determine unrecorded creation or role constraints.

  2. Rebounding

    1.0 RPG

    15th event percentile

    Rebounding production sits below much of the event pool and is an area to examine against role and size.

  3. Scoring load

    2.4 PPG

    34th event percentile

    Scoring volume is a lower relative part of this event profile.

//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

79.2

81st event percentile

Estimated points produced per 100 possessions.

Points

2.4 PPG

34th event percentile

Scoring volume per game.

True shooting

37.0%

60th event percentile

Scoring efficiency including twos, threes and free throws.

Effective FG

28.6%

48th event percentile

Field-goal efficiency with extra credit for made threes.

Field goals

21.4%

33rd event percentile

Overall field-goal percentage.

Three-point shooting

20.0%

context

2.0 attempts per game

Free throws

80.0%

94th event percentile

Free-throw conversion in this event.

Floor%

32.9%

67th event percentile

Estimated share of possessions producing at least one point.

Assists

0.0 APG

6th event percentile

Recorded passing production per game.

Defense and disruption

Estimated defensive efficiency, stops and recorded activity.

DRtg

57.8

73rd event percentile

Estimated points allowed per 100 possessions; lower is better.

Team DRtg

64.0

context

Team defensive baseline used by the Dean Oliver estimate.

Defensive lift

+6.2

92nd event percentile

Player DRtg is lower than the team baseline.

Stop%

84.0%

88th event percentile

Estimated share of defensive possessions ended through the player.

Recorded activity

1.2 STL+BLK

36th event percentile

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

Estimated stops

12.6

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

+21.4

79th event percentile

Raw ORtg minus DRtg.

Stabilized NRtg

+1.4

63rd event percentile

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

HESI performance

63.1

63rd event percentile

Event-relative rank of stabilized two-way performance.

Prospect index

63.2

64th event percentile

HESI performance with competition and age context.

PIE

1.7%

59th event percentile

Estimated share of positive game events while on the floor.

Rebounds

1.0 RPG

15th event percentile

Total rebounding production per game.

Sample and confidence

How much evidence supports the estimates shown above.

Games

5

context

Published games included in this event line.

Minutes

29.8

context

6.0 minutes per game.

Sample weight

33.2%

context

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

Confidence

Limited sample

context

Model confidence based on available games and minutes.

Event rank

#51

context

Among 142 published players.

Team possessions

604.7

context

Estimated 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

//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

5

GP

2.4

PPG

1.0

RPG

0.0

APG

#51

RANK

competition_history

All competitions

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

FIBA U18 AfroBasket

Continental · 2026

#51/142view →

//quick_read

The line at a glance

2.4

PPG

1.0

RPG

0.0

APG

0.4

TOV/G

0.4

3PM/G

37%

TS%

//event_fingerprint

Performance against this field

Scoring

2.4

P34

Playmaking

0.0

P6

Rebounding

1.0

P15

True shooting

37%

P60

Two-way impact

+21.4

P79

Stops

84%

P88

//shooting_profile

Makes, attempts and efficiency

FG

Field goals

21%

3 made / 14 attempts

3PT

Three-pointers

20%

2 made / 10 attempts

FT

Free throws

80%

4 made / 5 attempts

Shot selection

71% of attempts from three

2PA 43PA 10

//complete_box_score

Production by basketball action

scoring

12

PTS

2.4 / game

3–14

FGM–FGA

2–10

3PM–3PA

4–5

FTM–FTA

creation

0

AST

0.0 / game

2

TOV

0.4 / game

0.00×

AST:TOV

3

FD

rebounding

5

REB

1.0 / game

1

OREB

4

DREB

1.0

REB/G

defense

6

STL

1.2 / game

0

BLK

0.0 / game

2

PF

6

STL+BLK

1.2 / game

//hesi_and_dean_oliver

Efficiency and two-way impact

63.1

HESI

63.2

PI

79.2

ORtg

57.8

DRtg

+21.4

NRtg

+1.4

Stable NRtg

84%

Stop%

33%

Floor%

29%

eFG%

2%

PIE

64.0

Team DRtg

+6.2

Def. lift

sample_context

5 games30 minutes6.0 min/game33% sample weightrank #51 of 142
around_this_rank

Around this rank

Event-scoped ranking within FIBA U18 AfroBasket 2026 — 142 ranked players.

more_from_this_event

More from this event

Other ranked players from FIBA U18 AfroBasket 2026.

  • Couda Keita portrait#1

    Couda Keita

    Point Guard · Mali

    19.7 PPG 4.5 RPG 3.2 APG

    //event_signalScorer19.7 PPGComputed automatically from event data. Tap any signal to see the evidence behind it.//event_signalDisruptor4.0 steals + blocks per gameComputed automatically from event data. Tap any signal to see the evidence behind it.
  • Nimah Ibidunni portrait#49

    Nimah Ibidunni

    Nigeria

    6.8 PPG 6.0 RPG 0.5 APG

  • Joyce Wangui Kagiri portrait#50

    Joyce Wangui Kagiri

    Kenya

    11.5 PPG 7.3 RPG 1.7 APG

    //event_signalDisruptor4.5 steals + blocks per gameComputed automatically from event data. Tap any signal to see the evidence behind it.//event_signalActivity7.3 RPG + 4.5 defensive plays/GComputed automatically from event data. Tap any signal to see the evidence behind it.
  • Mary Hazel Ssengendo portrait#52

    Mary Hazel Ssengendo

    Uganda

    9.0 PPG 8.5 RPG 2.0 APG

    //event_signalActivity8.5 RPG + 2.3 defensive plays/GComputed automatically from event data. Tap any signal to see the evidence behind it.

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.

5

GP

2.4

PPG

1.0

RPG

0.0

APG

1.2

SPG

0.0

BPG

20%

3P%

37%

TS%

event_stats

Event production

Each line is scoped to one competition pool — not comparable across events.

FIBA U18 AfroBasket2026

5 GP · event rank #51

//quick_read

The line at a glance

2.4

PPG

1.0

RPG

0.0

APG

0.4

TOV/G

0.4

3PM/G

37%

TS%

//event_fingerprint

Performance against this field

Scoring

2.4

P34

Playmaking

0.0

P6

Rebounding

1.0

P15

True shooting

37%

P60

Two-way impact

+21.4

P79

Stops

84%

P88

//shooting_profile

Makes, attempts and efficiency

FG

Field goals

21%

3 made / 14 attempts

3PT

Three-pointers

20%

2 made / 10 attempts

FT

Free throws

80%

4 made / 5 attempts

Shot selection

71% of attempts from three

2PA 43PA 10

//complete_box_score

Production by basketball action

scoring

12

PTS

2.4 / game

3–14

FGM–FGA

2–10

3PM–3PA

4–5

FTM–FTA

creation

0

AST

0.0 / game

2

TOV

0.4 / game

0.00×

AST:TOV

3

FD

rebounding

5

REB

1.0 / game

1

OREB

4

DREB

1.0

REB/G

defense

6

STL

1.2 / game

0

BLK

0.0 / game

2

PF

6

STL+BLK

1.2 / game

//hesi_and_dean_oliver

Efficiency and two-way impact

63.1

HESI

63.2

PI

79.2

ORtg

57.8

DRtg

+21.4

NRtg

+1.4

Stable NRtg

84%

Stop%

33%

Floor%

29%

eFG%

2%

PIE

64.0

Team DRtg

+6.2

Def. lift

sample_context

5 games30 minutes6.0 min/game33% sample weightrank #51 of 142

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.