Hesi Sports Consulting//home_of_hesi_scout

Unclaimed

event_player · FIBA U17 Basketball World Cup 2026

Monta Culkstena

LAT · b. 2009

//measurables

178 cm

HEIGHT

//15_second_scouting_read

data-led profile

Defensive activity-led profile

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

automated_event_signals

1.7 stocksDefensive activity · 51st event percentile

1.0 APGCreation · 45th event percentile

27.2
HESI v2.1: #140
of 192: 60%
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 U17 Basketball World Cup2026

Rank #140 of 192 · Provisional

HESI v2.1

HESI

27.2

Event performance

27th event percentile

36.3

Prospect index

27th event percentile

ORtg

57.7

Points / 100 poss.

20th event percentile

DRtg

75.1

Lower is better

77th event percentile

NRtg

-17.4

Two-way margin

30th event percentile

Offensive evidence

ORtg 57.7 · 20th event percentile

Defensive evidence

DRtg 75.1 · Stop% 82.6% · Team DRtg 84.9

Sample context

7 games · 90 minutes · 60% weight

//statistical_read · not_a_scout_grade

Defensive activity-led profileevent-relative description

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

Defensive activity

1.7 stocks51st event percentile

Creation

1.0 APG45th 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
Which shot types and advantages are driving the efficiency profile?

Explore full efficiency + production profile

//impact_fingerprint

Where the profile separates

HESI performance

27.2

27th event percentile

Prospect index

36.3

27th event percentile

Offensive efficiency

57.7

20th event percentile

Defensive efficiency

75.1

77th event percentile

Two-way margin

-17.4

30th event percentile

Stop percentage

82.6%

96th event percentile

//role_and_production

How the production is shaped

Scoring load

1.7 PPG

16th event percentile

Creation

1.0 APG

45th event percentile

Rebounding

2.6 RPG

43rd event percentile

Defensive activity

1.7 stocks

51st event percentile

Scoring efficiency

38.7% TS

42nd 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.

P86
Defensive Impact
75.1 DRtg · 83% Stop% · 86th event percentile

//automated_interpretation · dean_oliver + event_stats

What the numbers suggest

HESI performance sits at the 27th event percentile. The Dean Oliver profile estimates 57.7 ORtg and 75.1 DRtg, producing a -17.4 Net Rating. The clearest relative strengths are defensive stops and defensive efficiency. The lowest relative areas are scoring load, offensive efficiency, and two-way margin.

Relative strengths

Defensive stops
82.6% Stop%
96th event percentile
The estimated share of defensive possessions ended through the player’s contribution is relatively strong.
Defensive efficiency
75.1 DRtg
77th event percentile
The favorable defensive percentile reflects a lower player DRtg relative to this event pool.

Relative weaknesses

Scoring load
1.7 PPG
16th event percentile
Scoring volume is a lower relative part of this event profile.
Offensive efficiency
57.7 ORtg
20th event percentile
The Dean Oliver estimate places offensive production per 100 possessions below much of this event pool.
Two-way margin
-17.4 NRtg
30th event percentile
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.

ORtg

57.7

20th event percentile

Estimated points produced per 100 possessions.

Points

1.7 PPG

16th event percentile

Scoring volume per game.

True shooting

38.7%

42nd event percentile

Scoring efficiency including twos, threes and free throws.

Effective FG

25.0%

18th event percentile

Field-goal efficiency with extra credit for made threes.

Field goals

25.0%

26th event percentile

Overall field-goal percentage.

Three-point shooting

0.0%

context

0.1 attempts per game

Free throws

75.0%

76th event percentile

Free-throw conversion in this event.

Floor%

27.9%

23rd event percentile

Estimated share of possessions producing at least one point.

Assists

1.0 APG

45th event percentile

Recorded passing production per game.

Defense and disruption

Estimated defensive efficiency, stops and recorded activity.

DRtg

75.1

77th event percentile

Estimated points allowed per 100 possessions; lower is better.

Team DRtg

84.9

context

Team defensive baseline used by the Dean Oliver estimate.

Defensive lift

+9.8

97th event percentile

Player DRtg is lower than the team baseline.

Stop%

82.6%

96th event percentile

Estimated share of defensive possessions ended through the player.

Recorded activity

1.7 STL+BLK

51st event percentile

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

Estimated stops

29.9

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

-17.4

30th event percentile

Raw ORtg minus DRtg.

Stabilized NRtg

-10.4

27th event percentile

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

HESI performance

27.2

27th event percentile

Event-relative rank of stabilized two-way performance.

Prospect index

36.3

27th event percentile

HESI performance with competition and age context.

PIE

2.6%

45th event percentile

Estimated share of positive game events while on the floor.

Rebounds

2.6 RPG

43rd 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

90.3

context

12.9 minutes per game.

Sample weight

60.1%

context

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

Confidence

Provisional

context

Model confidence based on available games and minutes.

Event rank

#140

context

Among 192 published players.

Team possessions

560.5

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.

//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

1.7

PPG

2.6

RPG

1.0

APG

#140

RANK

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

#140/192view →

//quick_read

The line at a glance

1.7

PPG

2.6

RPG

1.0

APG

1.7

TOV/G

0.0

3PM/G

39%

TS%

//event_fingerprint

Performance against this field

Scoring

1.7

P16

Playmaking

1.0

P45

Rebounding

2.6

P43

True shooting

39%

P42

Two-way impact

-17.4

P30

Stops

83%

P96

//shooting_profile

Makes, attempts and efficiency

Field goals

25%

3 made / 12 attempts

3PT

Three-pointers

0 made / 1 attempts

Free throws

75%

6 made / 8 attempts

Shot selection

8% of attempts from three

●2PA 11●3PA 1

//complete_box_score

Production by basketball action

scoring

PTS

1.7 / game

3–12

FGM–FGA

0–1

3PM–3PA

6–8

FTM–FTA

creation

AST

1.0 / game

TOV

1.7 / game

0.58×

AST:TOV

rebounding

REB

2.6 / game

OREB

DREB

2.6

REB/G

defense

STL

1.7 / game

BLK

0.0 / game

STL+BLK

1.7 / game

//hesi_and_dean_oliver

Efficiency and two-way impact

27.2

HESI

36.3

57.7

ORtg

75.1

DRtg

-17.4

NRtg

-10.4

Stable NRtg

83%

Stop%

28%

Floor%

25%

eFG%

PIE

84.9

Team DRtg

+9.8

Def. lift

around_this_rank

Around this rank

Event-scoped ranking within FIBA U17 Basketball World Cup 2026 — 192 ranked players.

rank_above · #139Jimena VelazquezMEX

//current_rank

#140

of 192 ranked

rank_below · #141Pippa GibbCanada

more_from_this_event

Key stats

FIBA U17 Basketball World Cup · 2026 — scoped to this competition pool.

1.7

PPG

2.6

RPG

1.0

APG

1.7

SPG

0.0

BPG

3P%

39%

TS%

event_stats