ORtg
154.1
99th event percentileEstimated points produced per 100 possessions.
back_to_rankings
Unclaimed
event_player
Philip Wickham
Forward · NZL · b. 2008
Latest event year on file: 2026FIBA U18 Asia Cup
//measurables
203 cm
HEIGHT
//15_second_scouting_read
data-led profileTwo-way event impact
Scoring efficiency and Rebounding are the clearest relative production signals in this event.
74.6% TSScoring efficiency · 97th event percentile
6.8 RPGRebounding · 89th event percentile
- 99.5
- HESI v2.1
- #2
- of 188
- 65%
- sample weight
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.
FIBA U18 Asia Cup2026
Rank #2 of 188 · Established
HESI
99.5
Event performance
99th event percentile
PI
91.1
Prospect index
99th event percentile
ORtg
154.1
Points / 100 poss.
99th event percentile
DRtg
81.7
Lower is better
92nd event percentile
NRtg
+72.4
Two-way margin
99th event percentile
Offensive evidence
ORtg 154.1 · 99th event percentile
Defensive evidence
DRtg 81.7 · Stop% 67.8% · Team DRtg 84.8
Sample context
6 games · 114 minutes · 65% weight
//statistical_read · not_a_scout_grade
Two-way event impactevent-relative description
Scoring efficiency and Rebounding are the clearest relative production signals in this event.
Scoring efficiency
74.6% TS97th event percentile
Rebounding
6.8 RPG89th event percentile
Questions for film
- 01
Do the steals and blocks come from disciplined reads, physical tools, or higher-risk activity?
- 02
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
99.5
99th event percentile
Prospect index
91.1
99th event percentile
Offensive efficiency
154.1
99th event percentile
Defensive efficiency
81.7
92nd event percentile
Two-way margin
+72.4
99th event percentile
Stop percentage
67.8%
88th event percentile
//role_and_production
How the production is shaped
Scoring load
8.3 PPG
68th event percentile
Creation
1.8 APG
72nd event percentile
Rebounding
6.8 RPG
89th event percentile
Defensive activity
1.2 stocks
64th event percentile
Scoring efficiency
74.6% TS
97th 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.
- P99
Event Impact
99.5 HESI performance · 99th event percentile
- P99
Offensive Impact
154.1 ORtg · 99th event percentile
- P97
Event Efficiency
75% TS on 8.3 PPG · 97th event percentile
- P96
Two-Way Impact
+72.4 Net Rating · 96th event percentile
- P90
Defensive Impact
81.7 DRtg · 68% Stop% · 90th event percentile
- P89
Rebounder
6.8 RPG · 89th event percentile
//automated_interpretation · dean_oliver + event_stats
What the numbers suggest
HESI performance sits at the 99th event percentile. The Dean Oliver profile estimates 154.1 ORtg and 81.7 DRtg, producing a +72.4 Net Rating. The clearest relative strengths are two-way margin, offensive efficiency, and scoring efficiency.
Relative strengths
- 99th event percentile
Two-way margin
+72.4 NRtg
The gap between estimated offensive and defensive efficiency is a clear positive separator in this event.
- 99th event percentile
Offensive efficiency
154.1 ORtg
The Dean Oliver estimate places offensive production per 100 possessions among the stronger results in this event.
- 97th event percentile
Scoring efficiency
74.6% TS
True shooting efficiency compares favorably with the published event pool.
Relative weaknesses
No available metric falls at or below the 40th event percentile. Film may still reveal skill-level weaknesses.
//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.
Points
8.3 PPG
68th event percentileScoring volume per game.
True shooting
74.6%
97th event percentileScoring efficiency including twos, threes and free throws.
Effective FG
73.3%
97th event percentileField-goal efficiency with extra credit for made threes.
Field goals
73.3%
99th event percentileOverall field-goal percentage.
Three-point shooting
0.0%
context0.5 attempts per game
Free throws
75.0%
66th event percentileFree-throw conversion in this event.
Floor%
75.4%
99th event percentileEstimated share of possessions producing at least one point.
Assists
1.8 APG
72nd event percentileRecorded passing production per game.
Defense and disruption
Estimated defensive efficiency, stops and recorded activity.
DRtg
81.7
92nd event percentileEstimated points allowed per 100 possessions; lower is better.
Team DRtg
84.8
contextTeam defensive baseline used by the Dean Oliver estimate.
Defensive lift
+3.1
82nd event percentilePlayer DRtg is lower than the team baseline.
Stop%
67.8%
88th event percentileEstimated share of defensive possessions ended through the player.
Recorded activity
1.2 STL+BLK
64th event percentileSteals plus blocks per game; it does not capture positioning or containment.
Estimated stops
30.0
contextDean Oliver estimated defensive stops across the event sample.
Two-way and all-around impact
Net impact, stabilized performance and supporting production.
Net Rating
+72.4
99th event percentileRaw ORtg minus DRtg.
Stabilized NRtg
+44.6
99th event percentileNet Rating pulled toward the event median according to sample size.
HESI performance
99.5
99th event percentileEvent-relative rank of stabilized two-way performance.
Prospect index
91.1
99th event percentileHESI performance with competition and age context.
PIE
10.4%
89th event percentileEstimated share of positive game events while on the floor.
Rebounds
6.8 RPG
89th event percentileTotal rebounding production per game.
Sample and confidence
How much evidence supports the estimates shown above.
Games
6
contextPublished games included in this event line.
Minutes
113.7
context18.9 minutes per game.
Sample weight
65.5%
contextHow strongly the model trusts raw Net Rating versus the event median.
Confidence
Established
contextModel confidence based on available games and minutes.
Event rank
#2
contextAmong 188 published players.
Team possessions
466.8
contextEstimated team possessions supporting the defensive context.
model_limits
- 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
//film_room
Athlete submissions, event footage, and approved scout evidence, with provenance kept visible.
film_room
Tape & footage
Highlights and full games — sourced from the athlete and event coverage.
Featured clip
ClipStarts muted. Turn sound on in the player.
Clip
vs Vs Japan · 2026-09-23 · scout: Ahmed Tareq
YouTube · approved scout evidence
Open source03
//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
Ahmed Tareq
Report date: 2026-09-23
verified_human_evaluation
Basketball verdict
Independent scout evaluation · role and translation first
// projected_role
forward · big · screen-and-roll finisher · short-roll connector · post / mismatch option
forward · big · screen-and-roll finisher · short-roll connector · post / mismatch option. Best current separators: Finishing, Screening, Roll gravity, Short-roll processing.
Now · ForwardNow · BigProjects · ForwardProjects · Big
Translatable strengths
- · Finishing
- · Screening
- · Roll gravity
- · Short-roll processing
Exploitable weaknesses
Not confirmed in this report.
Offensive translation
Projects to retain a primary role as a screen-and-roll finisher. Projects to retain a primary role as a short-roll connector. Projects to retain a primary role as a post / mismatch option. Projects to retain a situational role as a offensive rebounder.
Defensive assignments
primary post matchup defender (grade 5; assignment confirmed; workload should hold). primary rim protector (grade 5; assignment confirmed; workload should hold). regular low-man / back-line rotator (grade 4; assignment confirmed; workload can expand). situational switch defender (grade 3; assignment confirmed; workload can expand).
Best offensive fit
Possible fit: Projects into screen-and-roll actions as a screener and rim-pressure finisher. Representative film is still required.
Best defensive fit
Possible fit: Fits a connected help defense that values early positioning, tags and recoveries. Assignment-confirmed film is still required.
Limiting environments
A perimeter-only role that removes screening and interior gravity. A finishing-only role that does not use short-roll decisions.
Development priorities
No priority confirmed yet.
evidence_and_projection
Why the verdict holds
evidence_strength
strong
Limited representative evidence attached
pathway_hypothesis
MM D1
Mid-major NCAA Division I hypothesis · experimental uncalibrated
Experimental · not outcome-calibrated
hesi_reconciliation
Scout view × current production
Agreement and conflict stay visible; they are not averaged into one score.
Current event production
inconclusive99.5 performance rating · rank 2 · 6 games
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
Estimated offensive efficiency
inconclusiveORtg 154.1 · descriptive event context, not a role projection
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
Floor percentage context
inconclusive75.4% · possession outcome context
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
Stop percentage context
inconclusive67.8% · box-score estimate with team and role context
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
next_evaluation_assignment
Limited representative evidence attached
04
//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
6
GP
8.3
PPG
6.8
RPG
1.8
APG
#2
RANK
competition_history
All competitions
Published competitions, strongest first. Open the statistical record for the complete event line.
FIBA U18 Asia Cup
Continental · 2026
#2/188Event board →
6
GP
8.3
PPG
6.8
RPG
1.8
APG
event_context
Event context
FIBA U18 Asia Cup 2026 · 188 ranked players
#4
Guard · NZL
10.5 PPG 7.8 RPG 2.3 APG
//event_signalShooter37% 3PT on 3.2 3PA/GComputed automatically from event data. Tap any signal to see the evidence behind it.//event_signalDisruptor3.5 steals + blocks per gameComputed automatically from event data. Tap any signal to see the evidence behind it.#5
05
//statistical_record
Complete event-specific production lines for auditing the read without flattening different competitions together.
key_stats
Key stats
FIBA U18 Asia Cup · 2026 — scoped to this competition pool.
6
GP
8.3
PPG
6.8
RPG
1.8
APG
0.7
SPG
0.5
BPG
0%
3P%
75%
TS%
event_stats
Event production
Each line is scoped to one competition pool — not comparable across events.
FIBA U18 Asia Cup2026
6 GP · event rank #2
//quick_read
The line at a glance
8.3
PPG
6.8
RPG
1.8
APG
0.5
TOV/G
0.0
3PM/G
75%
TS%
//event_fingerprint
Performance against this field
Scoring
8.3
P68
Playmaking
1.8
P72
Rebounding
6.8
P89
True shooting
75%
P97
Two-way impact
+72.4
P99
Stops
68%
P88
//shooting_profile
Makes, attempts and efficiency
FG
Field goals
73%
22 made / 30 attempts
3PT
Three-pointers
0%
0 made / 3 attempts
FT
Free throws
75%
6 made / 8 attempts
Shot selection
10% of attempts from three
●2PA 27●3PA 3
//complete_box_score
Production by basketball action
scoring
50
PTS
8.3 / game
22–30
FGM–FGA
0–3
3PM–3PA
6–8
FTM–FTA
creation
11
AST
1.8 / game
3
TOV
0.5 / game
3.67×
AST:TOV
7
FD
rebounding
41
REB
6.8 / game
14
OREB
27
DREB
6.8
REB/G
defense
4
STL
0.7 / game
3
BLK
0.5 / game
14
PF
7
STL+BLK
1.2 / game
//hesi_and_dean_oliver
Efficiency and two-way impact
99.5
HESI
91.1
PI
154.1
ORtg
81.7
DRtg
+72.4
NRtg
+44.6
Stable NRtg
68%
Stop%
75%
Floor%
73%
eFG%
10%
PIE
84.8
Team DRtg
+3.1
Def. lift
06
//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.