ORtg
121.0
99th event percentileEstimated points produced per 100 possessions.
Shooting Guard · CIV · b. 2008
Latest event year on file: 2026FIBA U18 AfroBasket
//measurables
192 cm
HEIGHT
//15_second_scouting_read
film-led profile4 public film items and a finalized scouting report create the clearest current read.
01
//film_room
Athlete submissions, event footage, and approved scout evidence, with provenance kept visible.
Highlights and full games — sourced from the athlete and event coverage.
Featured clip
ClipStarts muted. Turn sound on in the player.
Clip
vs vs Nigeria U18 · 2026-09-17 · scout: Fahd Wael
YouTube · approved scout evidence
Open source02
//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: 2026-09-17
Independent scout evaluation · role and translation first
// projected_role
off_guard · wing · secondary creator / connector · spacing / shooting option · closeout attacker
off_guard · wing · secondary creator / connector · spacing / shooting option · closeout attacker. Best current separators: Finishing. Primary pressure points: Screen navigation, Gap help.
Translatable strengths
Exploitable weaknesses
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.
Defensive assignments
primary point-of-attack / screen navigator (grade 2.5; assignment confirmed; workload should hold). primary off-ball chaser (grade 3; assignment confirmed; workload should hold). situational gap / nail helper (grade 2; assignment confirmed; workload should hold).
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
Screen navigation · Gap help
evidence_strength
strong
3 representative game samples reviewed.
pathway_hypothesis
NCAA D2
NCAA Division II hypothesis · experimental uncalibrated
Experimental · not outcome-calibrated
Agreement and conflict stay visible; they are not averaged into one score.
Current event production
inconclusive98.5 performance rating · rank 5 · 6 games
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
Estimated offensive efficiency
inconclusiveORtg 121.0 · descriptive event context, not a role projection
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
Floor percentage context
inconclusive52.0% · possession outcome context
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
Stop percentage context
inconclusive56.4% · box-score estimate with team and role context
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
next_evaluation_assignment
Back-test this pathway hypothesis against real recruited-athlete outcomes before treating it as calibrated.
03
//performance_intelligence
Event-scoped HESI impact, role, sample strength, team context, and the questions that still need film verification.
//athlete_dossier · event_intelligence
Event-scoped production and two-way impact. This is performance data—not a scout evaluation or universal OVR.
FIBA U18 AfroBasket2026
Rank #5 of 138 · Established
HESI
98.5
Event performance
98th event percentile
PI
90.3
Prospect index
97th event percentile
ORtg
121.0
Points / 100 poss.
99th event percentile
DRtg
74.0
Lower is better
58th event percentile
NRtg
+47.0
Two-way margin
97th event percentile
Offensive evidence
ORtg 121.0 · 99th event percentile
Defensive evidence
DRtg 74.0 · Stop% 56.4% · Team DRtg 68.8
Sample context
6 games · 138 minutes · 70% weight
//statistical_read · not_a_scout_grade
Scoring efficiency and Scoring load are the clearest relative production signals in this event.
Scoring efficiency
Scoring load
Questions for film
Will the rebounding translate against larger and more physical competition?
Do the steals and blocks come from disciplined reads, physical tools, or higher-risk activity?
//impact_fingerprint
HESI performance
98.5
98th event percentile
Prospect index
90.3
97th event percentile
Offensive efficiency
121.0
99th event percentile
Defensive efficiency
74.0
58th event percentile
Two-way margin
+47.0
97th event percentile
Stop percentage
56.4%
39th event percentile
//role_and_production
Scoring load
12.5 PPG
90th event percentile
Creation
2.2 APG
83rd event percentile
Rebounding
3.3 RPG
45th event percentile
Defensive activity
1.3 stocks
47th event percentile
Scoring efficiency
57.0% TS
97th event percentile
//reading_guide
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.
The strongest patterns in this event sample, adjusted to the competition when event percentiles are available.
Offensive Impact
121.0 ORtg · 99th event percentile
Event Impact
98.5 HESI performance · 98th event percentile
Event Efficiency
57% TS on 12.5 PPG · 97th event percentile
Scorer
12.5 PPG · 90th event percentile
//automated_interpretation · dean_oliver + event_stats
HESI performance sits at the 98th event percentile. The Dean Oliver profile estimates 121.0 ORtg and 74.0 DRtg, producing a +47.0 Net Rating. The clearest relative strengths are offensive efficiency, two-way margin, and scoring efficiency. The lowest relative area is defensive stops.
Offensive efficiency
121.0 ORtg
The Dean Oliver estimate places offensive production per 100 possessions among the stronger results in this event.
Two-way margin
+47.0 NRtg
The gap between estimated offensive and defensive efficiency is a clear positive separator in this event.
Scoring efficiency
57.0% TS
True shooting efficiency compares favorably with the published event pool.
Defensive stops
56.4% Stop%
The estimated defensive-stop share is a lower relative area in the available sample.
//complete_statistical_profile
Percentile labels compare the player with the same published event pool. Context-only values are shown without inventing a rank.
Efficiency, scoring load, shooting shape and creation.
ORtg
121.0
99th event percentileEstimated points produced per 100 possessions.
Points
12.5 PPG
90th event percentileScoring volume per game.
True shooting
57.0%
97th event percentileScoring efficiency including twos, threes and free throws.
Effective FG
50.9%
91st event percentileField-goal efficiency with extra credit for made threes.
Field goals
42.1%
82nd event percentileOverall field-goal percentage.
Three-point shooting
31.3%
context5.3 attempts per game
Free throws
85.0%
93rd event percentileFree-throw conversion in this event.
Floor%
52.0%
96th event percentileEstimated share of possessions producing at least one point.
Assists
2.2 APG
83rd event percentileRecorded passing production per game.
Estimated defensive efficiency, stops and recorded activity.
DRtg
74.0
58th event percentileEstimated points allowed per 100 possessions; lower is better.
Team DRtg
68.8
contextTeam defensive baseline used by the Dean Oliver estimate.
Defensive lift
-5.2
26th event percentilePlayer DRtg is higher than the team baseline.
Stop%
56.4%
39th event percentileEstimated share of defensive possessions ended through the player.
Recorded activity
1.3 STL+BLK
47th event percentileSteals plus blocks per game; it does not capture positioning or containment.
Estimated stops
32.6
contextDean Oliver estimated defensive stops across the event sample.
Net impact, stabilized performance and supporting production.
Net Rating
+47.0
97th event percentileRaw ORtg minus DRtg.
Stabilized NRtg
+31.2
98th event percentileNet Rating pulled toward the event median according to sample size.
HESI performance
98.5
98th event percentileEvent-relative rank of stabilized two-way performance.
Prospect index
90.3
97th event percentileHESI performance with competition and age context.
PIE
12.6%
96th event percentileEstimated share of positive game events while on the floor.
Rebounds
3.3 RPG
45th event percentileTotal rebounding production per game.
How much evidence supports the estimates shown above.
Games
6
contextPublished games included in this event line.
Minutes
138.0
context23.0 minutes per game.
Sample weight
69.7%
contextHow strongly the model trusts raw Net Rating versus the event median.
Confidence
Established
contextModel confidence based on available games and minutes.
Event rank
#5
contextAmong 138 published players.
Team possessions
502.8
contextEstimated team possessions supporting the defensive context.
model_limits
04
//competition_evidence
Where the production happened, how strong the event pool was, and every published competition supporting the profile.
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
12.5
PPG
3.3
RPG
2.2
APG
#5
RANK
Published competitions, strongest first. Open the statistical record for the complete event line.
FIBA U18 AfroBasket
Continental · 2026
6
GP
12.5
PPG
3.3
RPG
2.2
APG
FIBA U18 AfroBasket 2026 · 138 ranked players
//current_rank
#5
of 138 ranked
05
//statistical_record
Complete event-specific production lines for auditing the read without flattening different competitions together.
FIBA U18 AfroBasket · 2026 — scoped to this competition pool.
6
GP
12.5
PPG
3.3
RPG
2.2
APG
1.3
SPG
0.0
BPG
31%
3P%
57%
TS%
Each line is scoped to one competition pool — not comparable across events.
FIBA U18 AfroBasket2026
6 GP · event rank #5
//quick_read
12.5
PPG
3.3
RPG
2.2
APG
1.3
TOV/G
1.7
3PM/G
57%
TS%
//event_fingerprint
Scoring
12.5
P90
Playmaking
2.2
P83
Rebounding
3.3
P45
True shooting
57%
P97
Two-way impact
+47.0
P97
Stops
56%
P39
//shooting_profile
FG
Field goals
42%
24 made / 57 attempts
3PT
Three-pointers
31%
10 made / 32 attempts
FT
Free throws
85%
17 made / 20 attempts
Shot selection
56% of attempts from three
//complete_box_score
scoring
75
PTS
12.5 / game
24–57
FGM–FGA
10–32
3PM–3PA
17–20
FTM–FTA
creation
13
AST
2.2 / game
8
TOV
1.3 / game
1.63×
AST:TOV
13
FD
rebounding
20
REB
3.3 / game
9
OREB
11
DREB
3.3
REB/G
defense
8
STL
1.3 / game
0
BLK
0.0 / game
6
PF
8
STL+BLK
1.3 / game
//hesi_and_dean_oliver
98.5
HESI
90.3
PI
121.0
ORtg
74.0
DRtg
+47.0
NRtg
+31.2
Stable NRtg
56%
Stop%
52%
Floor%
51%
eFG%
13%
PIE
68.8
Team DRtg
-5.2
Def. lift
06
//player_context
Biography, achievements, public identity, and profile ownership provide context without entering the performance rating.
Background supplied by the athlete or verified profile source. Performance ratings remain separate from biography and achievements.
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.