ORtg
74.9
32nd event percentileEstimated points produced per 100 possessions.
Combo Guard · SYR · b. 2008
Latest event year on file: 2026FIBA U18 Asia Cup
//measurables
188 cm
HEIGHT
//15_second_scouting_read
film-led profile3 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 Lebanon · 2026-09-14 · scout: Ahmed Tareq
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
Ahmed Tareq
Report date: 2026-09-14
Independent scout evaluation · role and translation first
// projected_role
combo_guard · lead_guard · expanded on-ball creator · expanded secondary creator / connector · expanded spacing / shooting option
combo_guard · lead_guard · expanded on-ball creator · expanded secondary creator / connector · expanded spacing / shooting option. Best current separators: Gap help, Finishing, Point-of-attack defense.
Translatable strengths
Exploitable weaknesses
Not confirmed in this report.
Offensive translation
Can take on more on-ball creator responsibility at the target level. Can take on more secondary creator / connector responsibility at the target level. Can take on more spacing / shooting option responsibility at the target level.
Defensive assignments
primary point-of-attack / screen navigator (grade 3.5; assignment confirmed; workload can expand). primary gap / nail helper (grade 5; assignment confirmed; workload should hold).
Best offensive fit
Offensive scheme fit remains unresolved.
Best defensive fit
Can take point-of-attack assignments in a coverage with clearly defined screen rules.
Limiting environments
A scheme that leaves her to absorb repeated screens without back-line support. A low-communication scheme with unclear help and recovery responsibilities.
Development priorities
No priority confirmed yet.
evidence_strength
strong
4 representative game samples reviewed.
pathway_hypothesis
Insufficient evidence
Insufficient evidence for a basketball pathway conclusion.
Evidence gates incomplete
Agreement and conflict stay visible; they are not averaged into one score.
Current event production
inconclusive32.6 performance rating · rank 127 · 4 games
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
Estimated offensive efficiency
inconclusiveORtg 74.9 · descriptive event context, not a role projection
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
Floor percentage context
inconclusive33.9% · possession outcome context
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
Stop percentage context
inconclusive48.8% · box-score estimate with team and role context
Next: Add a representative full-game observation in the same skill area.
next_evaluation_assignment
Record scout confidence
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 Asia Cup2026
Rank #127 of 188 · Provisional
HESI
32.6
Event performance
33rd event percentile
PI
37.6
Prospect index
33rd event percentile
ORtg
74.9
Points / 100 poss.
32nd event percentile
DRtg
97.3
Lower is better
65th event percentile
NRtg
-22.4
Two-way margin
38th event percentile
Offensive evidence
ORtg 74.9 · 32nd event percentile
Defensive evidence
DRtg 97.3 · Stop% 48.8% · Team DRtg 94.2
Sample context
4 games · 113 minutes · 65% weight
//statistical_read · not_a_scout_grade
Rebounding and Scoring load are the clearest relative production signals in this event.
Rebounding
Scoring load
Questions for film
How stable is this profile over a larger game and minute sample?
Which shot types and advantages are driving the efficiency profile?
Do the steals and blocks come from disciplined reads, physical tools, or higher-risk activity?
//impact_fingerprint
HESI performance
32.6
33rd event percentile
Prospect index
37.6
33rd event percentile
Offensive efficiency
74.9
32nd event percentile
Defensive efficiency
97.3
65th event percentile
Two-way margin
-22.4
38th event percentile
Stop percentage
48.8%
46th event percentile
//role_and_production
Scoring load
9.3 PPG
74th event percentile
Creation
1.5 APG
61st event percentile
Rebounding
5.0 RPG
77th event percentile
Defensive activity
0.8 stocks
40th event percentile
Scoring efficiency
34.0% TS
25th 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.
//automated_interpretation · dean_oliver + event_stats
HESI performance sits at the 33rd event percentile. The Dean Oliver profile estimates 74.9 ORtg and 97.3 DRtg, producing a -22.4 Net Rating. The clearest relative strengths are rebounding and scoring load. The lowest relative areas are scoring efficiency, offensive efficiency, and two-way margin.
Rebounding
5.0 RPG
Rebounding production is a clear relative contribution within this event.
Scoring load
9.3 PPG
Scoring volume stands out relative to players in the same published event pool.
Scoring efficiency
34.0% TS
True shooting efficiency is a lower relative area in the current event sample.
Offensive efficiency
74.9 ORtg
The Dean Oliver estimate places offensive production per 100 possessions below much of this event pool.
Two-way margin
-22.4 NRtg
The current gap between estimated offensive and defensive efficiency trails much of this event pool.
//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
74.9
32nd event percentileEstimated points produced per 100 possessions.
Points
9.3 PPG
74th event percentileScoring volume per game.
True shooting
34.0%
25th event percentileScoring efficiency including twos, threes and free throws.
Effective FG
28.7%
22nd event percentileField-goal efficiency with extra credit for made threes.
Field goals
23.4%
20th event percentileOverall field-goal percentage.
Three-point shooting
29.4%
context4.3 attempts per game
Free throws
58.8%
42nd event percentileFree-throw conversion in this event.
Floor%
33.9%
31st event percentileEstimated share of possessions producing at least one point.
Assists
1.5 APG
61st event percentileRecorded passing production per game.
Estimated defensive efficiency, stops and recorded activity.
DRtg
97.3
65th event percentileEstimated points allowed per 100 possessions; lower is better.
Team DRtg
94.2
contextTeam defensive baseline used by the Dean Oliver estimate.
Defensive lift
-3.2
43rd event percentilePlayer DRtg is higher than the team baseline.
Stop%
48.8%
46th event percentileEstimated share of defensive possessions ended through the player.
Recorded activity
0.8 STL+BLK
40th event percentileSteals plus blocks per game; it does not capture positioning or containment.
Estimated stops
21.7
contextDean Oliver estimated defensive stops across the event sample.
Net impact, stabilized performance and supporting production.
Net Rating
-22.4
38th event percentileRaw ORtg minus DRtg.
Stabilized NRtg
-17.4
33rd event percentileNet Rating pulled toward the event median according to sample size.
HESI performance
32.6
33rd event percentileEvent-relative rank of stabilized two-way performance.
Prospect index
37.6
33rd event percentileHESI performance with competition and age context.
PIE
1.3%
31st event percentileEstimated share of positive game events while on the floor.
Rebounds
5.0 RPG
77th event percentileTotal rebounding production per game.
How much evidence supports the estimates shown above.
Games
4
contextPublished games included in this event line.
Minutes
113.3
context28.3 minutes per game.
Sample weight
65.4%
contextHow strongly the model trusts raw Net Rating versus the event median.
Confidence
Provisional
contextModel confidence based on available games and minutes.
Event rank
#127
contextAmong 188 published players.
Team possessions
313.3
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 Asia Cup
Continental · 2026
4
GP
9.3
PPG
5.0
RPG
1.5
APG
#127
RANK
Published competitions, strongest first. Open the statistical record for the complete event line.
FIBA U18 Asia Cup
Continental · 2026
4
GP
9.3
PPG
5.0
RPG
1.5
APG
FIBA U18 Asia Cup 2026 · 188 ranked players
//current_rank
#127
of 188 ranked
05
//statistical_record
Complete event-specific production lines for auditing the read without flattening different competitions together.
FIBA U18 Asia Cup · 2026 — scoped to this competition pool.
4
GP
9.3
PPG
5.0
RPG
1.5
APG
0.8
SPG
0.0
BPG
29%
3P%
34%
TS%
Each line is scoped to one competition pool — not comparable across events.
FIBA U18 Asia Cup2026
4 GP · event rank #127
//quick_read
9.3
PPG
5.0
RPG
1.5
APG
2.3
TOV/G
1.3
3PM/G
34%
TS%
//event_fingerprint
Scoring
9.3
P74
Playmaking
1.5
P61
Rebounding
5.0
P77
True shooting
34%
P25
Two-way impact
-22.4
P38
Stops
49%
P46
//shooting_profile
FG
Field goals
23%
11 made / 47 attempts
3PT
Three-pointers
29%
5 made / 17 attempts
FT
Free throws
59%
10 made / 17 attempts
Shot selection
36% of attempts from three
//complete_box_score
scoring
37
PTS
9.3 / game
11–47
FGM–FGA
5–17
3PM–3PA
10–17
FTM–FTA
creation
6
AST
1.5 / game
9
TOV
2.3 / game
0.67×
AST:TOV
14
FD
rebounding
20
REB
5.0 / game
5
OREB
15
DREB
5.0
REB/G
defense
3
STL
0.8 / game
0
BLK
0.0 / game
7
PF
3
STL+BLK
0.8 / game
//hesi_and_dean_oliver
32.6
HESI
37.6
PI
74.9
ORtg
97.3
DRtg
-22.4
NRtg
-17.4
Stable NRtg
49%
Stop%
34%
Floor%
29%
eFG%
1%
PIE
94.2
Team DRtg
-3.2
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.