Hesi Sports Consulting//home_of_hesi_scout

Unclaimed

event_player · FIBA U18 Asia Cup 2026

MARYO QUSTANTIN

Combo Guard · SYR · b. 2008

//measurables

192 cm

HEIGHT

//15_second_scouting_read

data-led profile

Defensive impact profile

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

1.0 stocksDefensive activity · 45th event percentile

2.0 PPGScoring load · 22nd event percentile

46.5
HESI v2.1: #101
of 188: 10%
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 U18 Asia Cup2026

Rank #101 of 188 · Limited sample

HESI v2.1

HESI

46.5

Event performance

47th event percentile

48.7

Prospect index

47th event percentile

ORtg

64.8

Points / 100 poss.

23rd event percentile

DRtg

88.8

Lower is better

84th event percentile

NRtg

-24.1

Two-way margin

36th event percentile

Offensive evidence

ORtg 64.8 · 23rd event percentile

Defensive evidence

DRtg 88.8 · Stop% 68.5% · Team DRtg 94.2

Sample context

1 games · 7 minutes · 10% weight

//statistical_read · not_a_scout_grade

Defensive impact profileevent-relative description

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

Defensive activity

1.0 stocks45th event percentile

Scoring load

2.0 PPG22nd event percentile

Questions for film

01
How stable is this profile over a larger game and minute sample?
02
Does the film show repeatable advantage creation or mostly connective passing?
03
Which shot types and advantages are driving the efficiency profile?

Explore full efficiency + production profile

//impact_fingerprint

Where the profile separates

HESI performance

46.5

47th event percentile

Prospect index

48.7

47th event percentile

Offensive efficiency

64.8

23rd event percentile

Defensive efficiency

88.8

84th event percentile

Two-way margin

-24.1

36th event percentile

Stop percentage

68.5%

90th event percentile

//role_and_production

How the production is shaped

Scoring load

2.0 PPG

22nd event percentile

Creation

0.0 APG

7th event percentile

Rebounding

1.0 RPG

20th event percentile

Defensive activity

1.0 stocks

45th event percentile

Scoring efficiency

25.8% TS

17th 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 47th event percentile. The Dean Oliver profile estimates 64.8 ORtg and 88.8 DRtg, producing a -24.1 Net Rating. The clearest relative strengths are defensive stops and defensive efficiency. The lowest relative areas are creation, scoring efficiency, and rebounding.

Relative strengths

Defensive stops
68.5% Stop%
90th event percentile
The estimated share of defensive possessions ended through the player’s contribution is relatively strong.
Defensive efficiency
88.8 DRtg
84th event percentile
The favorable defensive percentile reflects a lower player DRtg relative to this event pool.

Relative weaknesses

Creation
0.0 APG
7th event percentile
Assist production is a lower relative area; the model cannot determine unrecorded creation or role constraints.
Scoring efficiency
25.8% TS
17th event percentile
True shooting efficiency is a lower relative area in the current event sample.
Rebounding
1.0 RPG
20th event percentile
Rebounding production sits below much of the event pool and is an area to examine against role and size.

//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

64.8

23rd event percentile

Estimated points produced per 100 possessions.

Points

2.0 PPG

22nd event percentile

Scoring volume per game.

True shooting

25.8%

17th event percentile

Scoring efficiency including twos, threes and free throws.

Effective FG

33.3%

28th event percentile

Field-goal efficiency with extra credit for made threes.

Field goals

33.3%

34th event percentile

Overall field-goal percentage.

Three-point shooting

0.0%

context

1.0 attempts per game

Free throws

0.0%

3rd event percentile

Free-throw conversion in this event.

Floor%

32.0%

28th event percentile

Estimated share of possessions producing at least one point.

Assists

0.0 APG

7th event percentile

Recorded passing production per game.

Defense and disruption

Estimated defensive efficiency, stops and recorded activity.

DRtg

88.8

84th event percentile

Estimated points allowed per 100 possessions; lower is better.

Team DRtg

94.2

context

Team defensive baseline used by the Dean Oliver estimate.

Defensive lift

+5.3

90th event percentile

Player DRtg is lower than the team baseline.

Stop%

68.5%

90th event percentile

Estimated share of defensive possessions ended through the player.

Recorded activity

1.0 STL+BLK

45th event percentile

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

Estimated stops

1.8

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

-24.1

36th event percentile

Raw ORtg minus DRtg.

Stabilized NRtg

-9.6

47th event percentile

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

HESI performance

46.5

47th event percentile

Event-relative rank of stabilized two-way performance.

Prospect index

48.7

47th event percentile

HESI performance with competition and age context.

PIE

-0.4%

14th event percentile

Estimated share of positive game events while on the floor.

Rebounds

1.0 RPG

20th 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

6.6

context

6.6 minutes per game.

Sample weight

9.9%

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

#101

context

Among 188 published players.

Team possessions

313.3

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 U18 Asia Cup

Continental · 2026

2.0

PPG

1.0

RPG

0.0

APG

#101

RANK

competition_history

All competitions

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

FIBA U18 Asia Cup

Continental · 2026

#101/188view →

//quick_read

The line at a glance

2.0

PPG

1.0

RPG

0.0

APG

0.0

TOV/G

0.0

3PM/G

26%

TS%

//event_fingerprint

Performance against this field

Scoring

2.0

P22

Playmaking

0.0

Rebounding

1.0

P20

True shooting

26%

P17

Two-way impact

-24.1

P36

Stops

69%

P90

//shooting_profile

Makes, attempts and efficiency

Field goals

33%

1 made / 3 attempts

3PT

Three-pointers

0 made / 1 attempts

Free throws

0 made / 2 attempts

Shot selection

33% of attempts from three

●2PA 2●3PA 1

//complete_box_score

Production by basketball action

scoring

PTS

2.0 / game

1–3

FGM–FGA

0–1

3PM–3PA

0–2

FTM–FTA

creation

AST

0.0 / game

TOV

0.0 / game

—

AST:TOV

rebounding

REB

1.0 / game

OREB

DREB

1.0

REB/G

defense

STL

1.0 / game

BLK

0.0 / game

STL+BLK

1.0 / game

//hesi_and_dean_oliver

Efficiency and two-way impact

46.5

HESI

48.7

64.8

ORtg

88.8

DRtg

-24.1

NRtg

-9.6

Stable NRtg

69%

Stop%

32%

Floor%

33%

eFG%

-0%

PIE

94.2

Team DRtg

+5.3

Def. lift

around_this_rank

Around this rank

Event-scoped ranking within FIBA U18 Asia Cup 2026 — 188 ranked players.

rank_above · #100Fumiya NakamuraSF · JPN

//current_rank

#101

of 188 ranked

rank_below · #102Geonwoo HeoF · KOR

more_from_this_event

Key stats

FIBA U18 Asia Cup · 2026 — scoped to this competition pool.

2.0

PPG

1.0

RPG

0.0

APG

1.0

SPG

0.0

BPG

3P%

26%

TS%

event_stats