Hesi Sports Consulting//home_of_hesi_scout

Unclaimed

event_player · FIBA U17 Basketball World Cup 2026

Jasmine Jones

AUS · b. 2010

//measurables

177 cm

HEIGHT

//15_second_scouting_read

data-led profile

Creation-led profile

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

2.0 APGCreation · 73rd event percentile

2.6 RPGRebounding · 43rd event percentile

75.4
HESI v2.1: #46
of 192: 62%
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 #46 of 192 · Provisional

HESI v2.1

HESI

75.4

Event performance

75th event percentile

76.0

Prospect index

76th event percentile

ORtg

96.2

Points / 100 poss.

74th event percentile

DRtg

79.7

Lower is better

63rd event percentile

NRtg

+16.5

Two-way margin

76th event percentile

Offensive evidence

ORtg 96.2 · 74th event percentile

Defensive evidence

DRtg 79.7 · Stop% 60.1% · Team DRtg 77.7

Sample context

7 games · 97 minutes · 62% weight

//statistical_read · not_a_scout_grade

Creation-led profileevent-relative description

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

Creation

2.0 APG73rd event percentile

Rebounding

2.6 RPG43rd event percentile

Questions for film

01
How stable is this profile over a larger game and minute sample?
02
Do the steals and blocks come from disciplined reads, physical tools, or higher-risk activity?
03
Can the scoring load hold as defensive attention and role responsibility increase?

Explore full efficiency + production profile

//impact_fingerprint

Where the profile separates

HESI performance

75.4

75th event percentile

Prospect index

76.0

76th event percentile

Offensive efficiency

96.2

74th event percentile

Defensive efficiency

79.7

63rd event percentile

Two-way margin

+16.5

76th event percentile

Stop percentage

60.1%

60th event percentile

//role_and_production

How the production is shaped

Scoring load

3.6 PPG

39th event percentile

Creation

2.0 APG

73rd event percentile

Rebounding

2.6 RPG

43rd event percentile

Defensive activity

0.6 stocks

36th event percentile

Scoring efficiency

38.5% TS

41st 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 75th event percentile. The Dean Oliver profile estimates 96.2 ORtg and 79.7 DRtg, producing a +16.5 Net Rating. The clearest relative strengths are two-way margin, offensive efficiency, and creation. The lowest relative areas are defensive activity and scoring load.

Relative strengths

Two-way margin
+16.5 NRtg
76th event percentile
The gap between estimated offensive and defensive efficiency is a clear positive separator in this event.
Offensive efficiency
96.2 ORtg
74th event percentile
The Dean Oliver estimate places offensive production per 100 possessions among the stronger results in this event.
Creation
2.0 APG
73rd event percentile
Assist production suggests a meaningful event-relative creation role; film must still separate advantage creation from connective passing.

Relative weaknesses

Defensive activity
0.6 steals + blocks/G
36th event percentile
Recorded steals and blocks are a lower relative area; this does not measure positioning, containment, or communication.
Scoring load
3.6 PPG
39th 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

96.2

74th event percentile

Estimated points produced per 100 possessions.

Points

3.6 PPG

39th event percentile

Scoring volume per game.

True shooting

38.5%

41st event percentile

Scoring efficiency including twos, threes and free throws.

Effective FG

39.1%

55th event percentile

Field-goal efficiency with extra credit for made threes.

Field goals

28.1%

33rd event percentile

Overall field-goal percentage.

Three-point shooting

28.0%

context

3.6 attempts per game

Free throws

0.0%

3rd event percentile

Free-throw conversion in this event.

Floor%

36.8%

45th event percentile

Estimated share of possessions producing at least one point.

Assists

2.0 APG

73rd event percentile

Recorded passing production per game.

Defense and disruption

Estimated defensive efficiency, stops and recorded activity.

DRtg

79.7

63rd event percentile

Estimated points allowed per 100 possessions; lower is better.

Team DRtg

77.7

context

Team defensive baseline used by the Dean Oliver estimate.

Defensive lift

-2.1

52nd event percentile

Player DRtg is higher than the team baseline.

Stop%

60.1%

60th event percentile

Estimated share of defensive possessions ended through the player.

Recorded activity

0.6 STL+BLK

36th event percentile

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

Estimated stops

21.4

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

+16.5

76th event percentile

Raw ORtg minus DRtg.

Stabilized NRtg

+10.2

75th event percentile

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

HESI performance

75.4

75th event percentile

Event-relative rank of stabilized two-way performance.

Prospect index

76.0

76th event percentile

HESI performance with competition and age context.

PIE

4.0%

67th 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

96.9

context

13.8 minutes per game.

Sample weight

61.8%

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

#46

context

Among 192 published players.

Team possessions

515.1

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

3.6

PPG

2.6

RPG

2.0

APG

#46

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

#46/192view →

//quick_read

The line at a glance

3.6

PPG

2.6

RPG

2.0

APG

0.4

TOV/G

1.0

3PM/G

39%

TS%

//event_fingerprint

Performance against this field

Scoring

3.6

P39

Playmaking

2.0

P73

Rebounding

2.6

P43

True shooting

39%

P41

Two-way impact

+16.5

P76

Stops

60%

P60

//shooting_profile

Makes, attempts and efficiency

Field goals

28%

9 made / 32 attempts

3PT

Three-pointers

28%

7 made / 25 attempts

Free throws

0 made / 1 attempts

Shot selection

78% of attempts from three

●2PA 7●3PA 25

//complete_box_score

Production by basketball action

scoring

PTS

3.6 / game

9–32

FGM–FGA

7–25

3PM–3PA

0–1

FTM–FTA

creation

AST

2.0 / game

TOV

0.4 / game

4.67×

AST:TOV

rebounding

REB

2.6 / game

OREB

DREB

2.6

REB/G

defense

STL

0.4 / game

BLK

0.1 / game

STL+BLK

0.6 / game

//hesi_and_dean_oliver

Efficiency and two-way impact

75.4

HESI

76.0

96.2

ORtg

79.7

DRtg

+16.5

NRtg

+10.2

Stable NRtg

60%

Stop%

37%

Floor%

39%

eFG%

PIE

77.7

Team DRtg

-2.1

Def. lift

around_this_rank

Around this rank

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

rank_above · #45Marta ArsentjevaLAT

//current_rank

#46

of 192 ranked

rank_below · #47Mia WiegandGER

more_from_this_event

Key stats

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

3.6

PPG

2.6

RPG

2.0

APG

0.4

SPG

0.1

BPG

28%

3P%

39%

TS%

event_stats