back_to_rankings
Fatim Koné portrait
Unclaimed
event_player

Fatim Koné

Center · CIV · b. 2009

Latest event year on file: 2026FIBA U18 AfroBasket

//measurables

182 cm

HEIGHT

//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.

43.6% TSScoring efficiency · 83rd event percentile

0.5 stocksDefensive activity · 39th event percentile

74.5
HESI v2.1
#36
of 142
17%
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 #36 of 142 · Limited sample

HESI v2.1

HESI

74.5

Event performance

74th event percentile

PI

72.3

Prospect index

75th event percentile

ORtg

120.1

Points / 100 poss.

99th event percentile

DRtg

37.1

Lower is better

96th event percentile

NRtg

+82.9

Two-way margin

99th event percentile

Offensive evidence

ORtg 120.1 · 99th event percentile

Defensive evidence

DRtg 37.1 · Stop% 90.4% · Team DRtg 41.7

Sample context

4 games · 12 minutes · 17% 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

43.6% TS83rd event percentile

Defensive activity

0.5 stocks39th 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

74.5

74th event percentile

Prospect index

72.3

75th event percentile

Offensive efficiency

120.1

99th event percentile

Defensive efficiency

37.1

96th event percentile

Two-way margin

+82.9

99th event percentile

Stop percentage

90.4%

93rd event percentile

//role_and_production

How the production is shaped

Scoring load

1.5 PPG

24th event percentile

Creation

0.0 APG

6th event percentile

Rebounding

1.5 RPG

23rd event percentile

Defensive activity

0.5 stocks

39th event percentile

Scoring efficiency

43.6% TS

83rd 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.

Automated signals and full statistical interpretation
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 74th event percentile. The Dean Oliver profile estimates 120.1 ORtg and 37.1 DRtg, producing a +82.9 Net Rating. The clearest relative strengths are offensive efficiency, two-way margin, and defensive efficiency. The lowest relative areas are creation, rebounding, and scoring load.

Relative strengths

  1. Offensive efficiency

    120.1 ORtg

    99th event percentile

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

  2. Two-way margin

    +82.9 NRtg

    99th event percentile

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

  3. Defensive efficiency

    37.1 DRtg

    96th event percentile

    The favorable defensive percentile reflects a lower player DRtg relative to this event pool.

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

    1.5 RPG

    23rd event percentile

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

  3. Scoring load

    1.5 PPG

    24th 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

120.1

99th event percentile

Estimated points produced per 100 possessions.

Points

1.5 PPG

24th event percentile

Scoring volume per game.

True shooting

43.6%

83rd event percentile

Scoring efficiency including twos, threes and free throws.

Effective FG

33.3%

60th event percentile

Field-goal efficiency with extra credit for made threes.

Field goals

33.3%

72nd event percentile

Overall field-goal percentage.

Free throws

100.0%

98th event percentile

Free-throw conversion in this event.

Floor%

55.9%

99th 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

37.1

96th event percentile

Estimated points allowed per 100 possessions; lower is better.

Team DRtg

41.7

context

Team defensive baseline used by the Dean Oliver estimate.

Defensive lift

+4.5

86th event percentile

Player DRtg is lower than the team baseline.

Stop%

90.4%

93rd event percentile

Estimated share of defensive possessions ended through the player.

Recorded activity

0.5 STL+BLK

39th event percentile

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

Estimated stops

4.9

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

+82.9

99th event percentile

Raw ORtg minus DRtg.

Stabilized NRtg

+6.8

74th event percentile

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

HESI performance

74.5

74th event percentile

Event-relative rank of stabilized two-way performance.

Prospect index

72.3

75th event percentile

HESI performance with competition and age context.

PIE

5.0%

56th event percentile

Estimated share of positive game events while on the floor.

Rebounds

1.5 RPG

23rd event percentile

Total rebounding production per game.

Sample and confidence

How much evidence supports the estimates shown above.

Games

4

context

Published games included in this event line.

Minutes

12.1

context

3.0 minutes per game.

Sample weight

16.8%

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

#36

context

Among 142 published players.

Team possessions

542.2

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

4

GP

1.5

PPG

1.5

RPG

0.0

APG

#36

RANK

competition_history

All competitions

Published competitions, strongest first. Open the statistical record for the complete event line.

FIBA U18 AfroBasket

Continental · 2026

4

GP

1.5

PPG

1.5

RPG

0.0

APG

Full statistics →
event_context

Event context

FIBA U18 AfroBasket 2026 · 142 ranked players

  • 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.
  • RAMATOU DISSA portrait#34

    RAMATOU DISSA

    Center · Côte d'Ivoire

    3.2 PPG 4.2 RPG 1.2 APG

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.

4

GP

1.5

PPG

1.5

RPG

0.0

APG

0.3

SPG

0.3

BPG

—

3P%

44%

TS%

event_stats

Event production

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

FIBA U18 AfroBasket2026

4 GP · event rank #36

//quick_read

The line at a glance

1.5

PPG

1.5

RPG

0.0

APG

0.0

TOV/G

0.0

3PM/G

44%

TS%

//event_fingerprint

Performance against this field

Scoring

1.5

P24

Playmaking

0.0

P6

Rebounding

1.5

P23

True shooting

44%

P83

Two-way impact

+82.9

P100

Stops

90%

P93

//shooting_profile

Makes, attempts and efficiency

FG

Field goals

33%

2 made / 6 attempts

3PT

Three-pointers

—

0 made / 0 attempts

FT

Free throws

100%

2 made / 2 attempts

Shot selection

0% of attempts from three

●2PA 6●3PA 0

//complete_box_score

Production by basketball action

scoring

6

PTS

1.5 / game

2–6

FGM–FGA

0–0

3PM–3PA

2–2

FTM–FTA

creation

0

AST

0.0 / game

0

TOV

0.0 / game

—

AST:TOV

1

FD

rebounding

6

REB

1.5 / game

3

OREB

3

DREB

1.5

REB/G

defense

1

STL

0.3 / game

1

BLK

0.3 / game

2

PF

2

STL+BLK

0.5 / game

//hesi_and_dean_oliver

Efficiency and two-way impact

74.5

HESI

72.3

PI

120.1

ORtg

37.1

DRtg

+82.9

NRtg

+6.8

Stable NRtg

90%

Stop%

56%

Floor%

33%

eFG%

5%

PIE

41.7

Team DRtg

+4.5

Def. lift

sample_context

4 games12 minutes3.0 min/game17% sample weightrank #36 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.