Benjamin Berrouet
6 of 16 rules fired.
The findings below come from a deterministic rule engine — every number is a value in the mart, cited beneath the sentence it supports.
This player's opening paragraph is different. He has 5 published scouting reports (Eurohopes, FIBA), and the paragraph is written from them rather than from a rule. It is the only generated prose on this page. Findings marked " are also a scout's opinion, not a measurement, and carry their outlet and date instead of a mart path. The originals are linked under "What the scouts wrote" below — read them before you rely on the summary.
Rule findings are never removed to agree with a scout. Where the two point opposite ways, the finding says so.
Berrouet is scouted as a physically mature big who impacts games at every level of the floor. The most recent report (August 2026) describes an appealing mix of size, physicality and skill, above-average athleticism for the level, and — a detail scouts return to — great hands, to pass, finish or operate with the ball, combined with body usage that lets him absorb contact in traffic and in catch-and-drive situations.
The consistent framing elsewhere is a US-based 2010-born with a Latvian passport who was a key piece for Latvia's national team despite being a year younger than the field. Scouts credit legitimate athleticism from a strong, solid body archetype, good size, intelligent off-ball movement, effort, and a high motor that produces rebounds. FIBA's read adds the two-way breadth: a threat as screener, interior scorer and rebounder, with enough perimeter skill to create drives and convert jumpers, while also making a defensive impact. No substantive weakness is recorded in the retrieved reports — which is a gap in the evidence, not a statement that none exists.
Written from 5 published reports (Eurohopes, FIBA) — not from the model. The score and every finding beside it are unaffected.
Strengths (6)
Weaknesses (1)
Read this with care (1)
Context (3)
Every number here is a percentile within the 2010 cohort — 253 players who cleared the sample floor. 50 is the middle of his own age group, not of basketball.
Weighted 32 / 24 / 16 / 12 — Production, Level, Age vs level, Skill markers. Physical and Confidence scale the whole score instead, by up to 10% and 6%; they can lower it, never raise it. Move the weights on the board →
How much he produced, once you strip out how easy his competition was and how old he is. Points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks in one number, per 40 minutes, then shrunk toward the average if we have seen little of him.
For him: age + level adjusted.
100The best competition he has genuinely held a role in — weighted by how big that role was, plus a little credit for the strongest competition he has appeared in at all.
For him: strongest competition with a reliable sample.
89How young he is for the company he keeps. Months younger than the typical regular where he has held a real role, plus a little credit for the gap at the strongest competition he has appeared in at all — the same shape as Level, because reaching an ACB floor at seventeen counts even for two minutes.
For him: 14 months younger.
80True shooting, three-point volume x accuracy, assist-to-turnover, free-throw rate, and steals plus blocks — the markers that tend to survive a move up a level. Ranked against others in his position group and birth year.
For him: TS · 3P vol×acc · A/TO · FTr.
83His height as a percentile among players of the same POSITION and age — 206 cm is average for a centre and exceptional for a wing. It can only subtract, and only below the median: average height for your position costs nothing, and the compression grows to at most 10% for the genuinely undersized.
For him: within SF/PF his age.
85How much of him we have actually seen — minutes, share of his team's games, and how many separate competitions. This is a statement about our data, not a judgement about the player.
For him: how much we have seen — 384′ · 14 GP · estimated profile.
94Each family is his level- and age-adjusted rate, percentiled against every player born in 2010 who cleared the sample floor — the same 253 players the score breakdown uses.
One row per competition-season, because "how good is he" is only answerable per level.
Lvl is the fitted Level Index band. Adj is his composite production translated to the FIBA youth Division A baseline at age 20 — the number that makes a Lithuanian U18 line and an ACB line comparable.
Reading Adj. A per-40 composite (points + 0.7·rebounds + assists + steals + blocks − 0.7·turnovers) after the competition effect and the age effect have been removed, so two rows compare directly however far apart their levels are. For scale, the median among ranked 2010-born players is 27.1; his own window figure is 37.4 after sample shrinkage.
Game log ↓| Season | Competition | Lvl | Adj | Obs | Team | Age | GP | MIN | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | PTS/40 | REB/40 | AST/40 | STL | BLK | TOV | TS% | 3P% | 3PA/40 | USG | OREB% | DREB% | +/− |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | FIBA U16 EuroBasket Division A U16 | 4 | 51.7 | 48.2 | Latvia | 16.2 | 7 | 232 | 33.1 | 23.6 | 15.0 | 4.1 | 28.4 | 18.1 | 5.0 | 0.3 | 4.3 | 3.6 | 68.0 | 35.3 | 2.9 | 26.9 | 13.7 | 34.8 | 14.6 |
| 2025 | FIBA U16 EuroBasket Division A U16 | 4 | 46.0 | 36.1 | Latvia | 15.2 | 7 | 152 | 21.7 | 11.1 | 9.3 | 1.7 | 20.5 | 17.1 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 2.9 | 4.2 | 53.0 | 27.3 | 2.9 | 25.1 | 21.3 | 25.5 | 0.0 |
Every game he played, newest first — the window and everything before it.
Age is his exact age that day, not his age this season. St marks a start; a p beside it means the source rows for that game do not sum to the reported score.
| Date | Comp | Team | Opponent | Result | Age | MIN | PTS | FG | 3P | FT | OR | DR | REB | AST | STL | BLK | TOV | PF | +/− | St |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-08-15 | fiba-u16-euro-a | Latvia | @ France | 75–69 | 16.18 | 34 | 22 | 10/14 | 1/1 | 1/1 | 4 | 9 | 13 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 14 | ● |
| 2026-08-14 | fiba-u16-euro-a | Latvia | @ Spain | 92–87 | 16.18 | 38 | 26 | 10/16 | 3/5 | 3/4 | 2 | 13 | 15 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 5 | ● |
| 2026-08-12 | fiba-u16-euro-a | Latvia | Greece | 92–80 | 16.17 | 33 | 25 | 9/13 | 1/2 | 6/6 | 1 | 13 | 14 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 9 | ● |
| 2026-08-11 | fiba-u16-euro-a | Latvia | Serbia | 99–59 | 16.17 | 31 | 12 | 2/7 | 0/2 | 8/10 | 3 | 11 | 14 | 9 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 41 | ● |
| 2026-08-09 | fiba-u16-euro-a | Latvia | Czech-Republic | 95–80 | 16.16 | 32 | 33 | 13/25 | 0/2 | 7/12 | 12 | 10 | 22 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 8 | ● |
| 2026-08-08 | fiba-u16-euro-a | Latvia | Turkey | 88–63 | 16.16 | 33 | 22 | 6/9 | 1/1 | 9/12 | 2 | 10 | 12 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 19 | ● |
| 2026-08-07 | fiba-u16-euro-a | Latvia | @ Italy | 82–70 | 16.16 | 31 | 25 | 9/14 | 0/4 | 7/8 | 3 | 12 | 15 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | ● |
| 2025-08-16 | fiba-u16-euro-a | Latvia | France | 66–90 | 15.18 | 27 | 11 | 4/9 | 1/3 | 2/4 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -25 | ● |
| 2025-08-15 | fiba-u16-euro-a | Latvia | @ Turkey | 88–80 | 15.18 | 28 | 10 | 5/10 | 0/2 | 0/0 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 9 | ● |
| 2025-08-13 | fiba-u16-euro-a | Latvia | @ Slovenia | 74–80 | 15.18 | 20 | 13 | 5/9 | 1/2 | 2/2 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 1 | -6 | ● |
| 2025-08-12 | fiba-u16-euro-a | Latvia | Georgia | 106–54 | 15.17 | 20 | 11 | 4/8 | 1/2 | 2/3 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 11 | ● |
| 2025-08-10 | fiba-u16-euro-a | Latvia | @ Romania | 92–82 | 15.17 | 15 | 6 | 3/9 | 0/1 | 0/0 | 9 | 5 | 14 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | -4 | |
| 2025-08-09 | fiba-u16-euro-a | Latvia | @ Italy | 70–49 | 15.17 | 22 | 16 | 6/7 | 0/0 | 4/10 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 13 | |
| 2025-08-08 | fiba-u16-euro-a | Latvia | Greece | 74–68 | 15.16 | 20 | 11 | 4/11 | 0/1 | 3/5 | 6 | 8 | 14 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Each point is his level- and age-adjusted production over the twelve months ending that quarter, placed against everyone born in 2010 who also had 150+ minutes in their own trailing year. 100 is the top of his age group.
A rising line is a player pulling away from his own age group; a flat one at a higher level is still progress.
It is built from the same fitted coefficients as the Prospect Score's largest component, applied to the games played up to each quarter — not a separate model, and not a reconstruction of the Score itself, which exists only for today.
Recent form is a rolling 10-game composite per 40 over his last games — raw output, not translated, because form is about what he is doing now.
| Season | Level | Adj | Standing | Rank | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-2026 | 4 | 51.7 | 100 | #1/154 | 232′/7 |
| 2024-2025 | 4 | 46.0 | 97 | #2/34 | 152′/7 |
Every competition he has played a reliable sample in, strongest first. The bar is how strong the competition is — its Level Index, 0 to 100 — not how much he played; his total minutes there are on the right.
Moving up this ladder while holding production is the trajectory signal.