Moustapha Thiam
Cincinnati Bearcats · NCAA Division I · Center · Sophomore · 2.18 m
SportiveWorld evaluation
Main reading
The environment holds him back: on his signals alone he would be #11 of 39 (2025-26).
Why he is here
The NCAA model places him #30 of 39, but the environment drags him down: on his individual signals alone he would be #11 and the comparables see him #14. Market: #43.
Measured over 31 games with a box score · 2025-26 · Cincinnati Bearcats
- fact16 % probability of an NBA career (≥ 2,000 min). On the model's scale: context +1.74 · player +1.52. With average opponent and team, the same profile would give 3.3 %; on the environment alone, 4 %.
- factMeasured environment: Cincinnati Bearcats, strength +5.5 (+0.8 sd) · average opponent +3.1 (+1.1 sd) — environment #38 of 39 ranked
- factHis individual signal adding the most: Blocks per 40 2.4 (+2.3 sd · contribution +0.87). On his individual signals alone he would be #11 of 39.
- factHistorical comparables: 32 of 235 similar university seasons reached the NBA (14 %) — #14 of 36 ranked in that lens. The model gives him 41 % to reach the NBA: the comparables are more conservative than the model for all 36 ranked, which is why this lens compares ranks, not figures.
interpretationThe environment drags him down: his individual production, with average opponent and team, would be worth more places than we give him. A weak context hides signals that are genuinely his.
Where the rank comes from: how much his individual signals contribute and how much his environment (model scale). Below, the probability with an average opponent and team, and the probability on the environment alone.
Potential
Categorical reading of the ceiling the accredited evidence supports. Not a score: it starts from the NCAA model (if any) or from the market prior and only moves one level with our own evidence, declared piece by piece.
factStarts from the NCAA model: 16% probability of an NBA career (#30 of 39 measured). → Medium
- ◎The market (#43) does not disagree with the model enough to move the reading.
- ◎On his individual signals alone he would be #11 of 39 (≥ 8 places better than his model #30): the environment holds him back. Up one level.
Evidence moves the reading one level at most, in the direction the sum of the evidence pushes. · Confidence: NCAA season with ≥ 15 games with a box score and ≥ 60% of the team's games.
Production
2025-26 · Cincinnati Bearcats · 12.8p · 7.1r · 0.5a · 27.2 min · 31 of 33 games with a box score · TS 57.0 %
By opponent level ▾
Per 40 minutes, over the games with a box score. Small samples within one season: read as a hint, not a verdict.
| pj | W-L | min | pts/40 | reb/40 | ast/40 | tov/40 | TS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | 31 | — | 27.2 | 18.8 | 10.5 | 0.8 | 2.0 | 57.0 % |
| Opponents +8 or better | 7 | 2-5 | 22.6 | 15.7 | 11.4 | 1.0 | 2.3 | 53.1 % |
| Other opponents | 24 | 15-9 | 28.5 | 19.6 | 10.3 | 0.7 | 1.9 | 57.8 % |
| Postseason | 2 | 1-1 | 37.5 | 17.1 | 13.9 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 53.2 % |
| Away / neutral | 12 | 1-11 | 26.9 | 19.8 | 10.4 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 55.3 % |
Strengths
Signals that add the most
What travels: holds up against strong opponents
—
An individual signal is transferable if it holds against opponents rated +8 or better (≥ 90% of its season value). What evaporates as the level rises is stated.
Risks and what would change our mind
Signals that subtract
- ▼Scoring per 40: 15.7 against +8 opponents (7 games) versus 18.8 over the season — drops as the level rises
Would make us move him down
- ▼More sources consolidating the consensus #43
Would make us move him up
- ▲Combine measurements (wingspan, reach, athleticism): we do not have them today
What to watch until the Draft
- →The 2026-27 season: every new box score is measured and can move the rank
- →The 2027 Combine (May): wingspan, reach and athleticism we do not have today
- →The mocks: captured daily; today the consensus is 2 source(s)
- →His minutes (27.2 per game): a drop would show in the box score before any news
Context
Facts derived from the box score (Basketball-Reference formulas over the games he played) and the standings. No film or tracking data.
Context
Facts derived from the box score (Basketball-Reference formulas over the games he played) and the standings. No film or tracking data.
Role on his team
- ·Started 31 of 31 games (100%) · 27.2 min (68% of the available minutes)
- ·Usage 23.3% of his team's possessions while on the floor · 26% of its points
- ·Creation: assists 4.1% of his teammates' baskets while on the floor · 0.40 assists per turnover · 10.8% of his possessions end in a turnover
- ·Team record with him on the floor: 17-14 · estimated pace 70.0 possessions per 40 min
His team and schedule
- ·Cincinnati Bearcats · Big 12 Conference · 17-14 in the standings · 9-9 in conference
- ·Postseason with a box score: 2 games, none in the NCAA Tournament
- ·Team strength +5.5 (+0.8 sd in the cohort) · average opponent +3.1 (+1.1 sd): the model's two context signals
Development
Development
The previous season (2024-25) has 5 games with a box score: too small a sample to compare.
Comparables and outlook (Scout)
Similarity of one season's statistical profile (12 axes per 40 minutes), not of playing style. 'Looks like X' means 'his season resembles it on these axes', nothing more.
Comparables and outlook (Scout)
Similarity of one season's statistical profile (12 axes per 40 minutes), not of playing style. 'Looks like X' means 'his season resembles it on these axes', nothing more.
fact32 of the 235 university seasons most like his 2025-26 reached the NBA (14 %) · statistical archetype: Classic power forward
NBA twins · what they share
Computed on 2025-26 (31 games) · 2026-09-13
Combine
Combine
No Combine measurements: he does not appear in the 2024-2026 combines (or does not match uniquely by name). The physique above is what his programme lists, not a measurement.
Market vs SportiveWorld
Outside reference: the rank given by the cited publications. We know the rank; they do not publish the why.
factExternal consensus #43 (Tankathon #50 · nbadraftroom #21; 2 source(s)). What we know: the rank. What we do NOT know: why they place him there — the sources publish rankings, not reasons.
Does our position hold? · The three lenses
- ◎On his individual signals alone he would be #11 of 39: −19 places versus SW #30 — the environment drags him down
- ◎On his environment alone (opponent and team) he would be #38 of 39, with 4 %
- ◎The comparables lens places him relatively higher on the board: #14 of 36 (−16 places versus SW #30). It is a relative rank, not a rate: 14 % of 235 similar seasons reached the NBA; the model gives him 41 % to reach it
Three independent lenses against our own place: his individual signals alone, his environment alone and the historical comparables. A lens disagrees when it lands 8 places away or more. SportiveWorld can be wrong: this is where it shows.
Conviction
- ✓Sample: 31 of 33 games with a box score (94%)
- ✓Standardised by the Scout census (own season profile)
- ✓Consensus from 2 sources
- ✗His individual signals alone place him far from the SW rank (#11 versus #30)
- ✗Historical comparables place him far away (#14 of 36 versus SW #30)
Why this gap exists ▾
On our side the gap decomposes exactly: which dimensions push the rank up and which hold it back. On the consensus side we only see the rank: its sources publish rankings, not reasons, so why they place him there is UNKNOWN. All we can say is what our model does NOT measure.
factSportiveWorld #30 · consensus #43: 13 places higher. Pushing up: Production · Opponent quality · Box-score defence · Team strength · Minutes. Holding back: Creation · Efficiency. Consensus sources: 2.
unknownWe know the consensus rank (#43: Tankathon #50 · nbadraftroom #21). We do not know why they place him there: the sources publish rankings, not reasons.
Pushes the rank up
Holds the rank back
What our model does NOT measure (it could explain part of the gap; the consensus does not publish its reasons)
- ◇Age and class (Sophomore): the model does not adjust for them; the same production from a younger player projects higher
- ◇Physique and athleticism: no Combine measurements; only the listed height
- ◇Projection, film and future role: not in the box score
No appreciable weight · Outside shooting −0.05
Rank history ▾
7 captures, from 2026-09-13 to 2026-09-20
- ·2026-09-15: SW #29 → #30 · consensus #44 → #43 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
Movement in the mocks
Data and evidence
Everything behind the reading, on demand: season signal by signal, trajectory, games with a box score, comparables, consensus and the provenance of every figure.
Data and evidence
Everything behind the reading, on demand: season signal by signal, trajectory, games with a box score, comparables, consensus and the provenance of every figure.
All the model's signals
Calibrated probability of an NBA career of ≥ 2,000 minutes, given this season = 16.2 % · P(playing in the NBA) = 40.5 %
31 of 33 games with a box score · 18 conference · Average opponent +3.1 (+1.1 sd vs the cohort) · team +5.5 (+0.8 sd) · standardization from the Scout census
Who he is
The games with a box score in the measured season
| 2025-26 | Opponent | opp. rating | min | pts | reb | ast | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-11 | @ UCF Knights L 65-66 · Conference Tournament | +2.3 | 42 | 18 | 16 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-03-10 | Utah Utes W 73-66 · Conference Tournament | −4.7 | 33 | 14 | 10 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-03-07 | @ TCU Horned Frogs L 63-73 | +5.3 | 28 | 8 | 5 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-03-04 | BYU Cougars W 90-68 | +8.1 | 32 | 16 | 9 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-02-28 | Oklahoma State Cowboys W 91-68 | +0.7 | 28 | 24 | 15 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-02-25 | @ Texas Tech Red Raiders L 68-80 | +7.2 | 36 | 21 | 10 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-02-21 | @ Kansas Jayhawks W 84-68 | +6.1 | 30 | 28 | 8 | 2 | box score |
| 2026-02-15 | Utah Utes W 69-65 | −4.7 | 25 | 15 | 10 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-02-08 | UCF Knights W 92-72 | +2.3 | 31 | 15 | 7 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-01-31 | @ Houston Cougars L 54-76 | +14.5 | 11 | 2 | 3 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-01-28 | Baylor Bears W 67-57 | +5.3 | 28 | 14 | 4 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-01-25 | @ Arizona State Sun Devils L 68-82 | −2.0 | 27 | 15 | 6 | 2 | box score |
| 2026-01-22 | @ Arizona Wildcats L 51-77 | +16.8 | 17 | 5 | 4 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-01-17 | Iowa State Cyclones W 79-70 | +16.4 | 22 | 5 | 6 | 2 | box score |
| 2026-01-15 | Colorado Buffaloes W 77-68 | +0.4 | 31 | 15 | 2 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-01-11 | @ UCF Knights L 72-73 | +2.3 | 31 | 24 | 5 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-01-07 | @ West Virginia Mountaineers L 60-62 | +4.9 | 27 | 4 | 4 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-01-03 | Houston Cougars L 60-67 | +14.5 | 28 | 13 | 5 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-12-30 | Lipscomb Bisons W 89-62 | +3.9 | 24 | 18 | 5 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-12-21 | @ Clemson Tigers L 65-68 | +7.0 | 26 | 15 | 5 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-12-18 | Alabama State Hornets W 88-51 | −4.1 | 24 | 9 | 9 | 1 | box score |
| 2025-12-13 | @ Georgia Bulldogs L 65-84 | +9.6 | 21 | 11 | 9 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-12-06 | @ Xavier Musketeers L 74-79 | −2.3 | 27 | 9 | 9 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-12-02 | Tarleton State Texans W 76-58 | +1.1 | 22 | 0 | 3 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-11-27 | Eastern Michigan Eagles L 56-64 | −2.8 | 34 | 8 | 2 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-11-25 | NJIT Highlanders W 94-67 | −6.2 | 26 | 15 | 10 | 1 | box score |
| 2025-11-21 | Louisville Cardinals L 64-74 | +11.7 | 27 | 10 | 9 | 1 | box score |
| 2025-11-16 | Mount St. Mary's Mountaineers W 72-55 | −2.1 | 27 | 13 | 10 | 1 | box score |
| 2025-11-12 | Dayton Flyers W 74-62 | +4.8 | 25 | 5 | 7 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-11-08 | Georgia State Panthers W 74-64 | −4.3 | 29 | 10 | 9 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-11-04 | Western Carolina Catamounts W 94-63 | +1.1 | 24 | 18 | 5 | 1 | box score |
Evidence and provenance
Every figure in this file comes from one of these sources, with its scope and its sample. What is not here has not been measured.
| Owner | Scope | Sample | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outside consensus | draft_board_mock · lib/bigboard.ts | 2 mocks | Tankathon #50 · nbadraftroom #21 |
| Identity | draft_board_prospect.espn_athlete_id · scripts/cross_bigboard_stats.mjs | NCAA Division I | 5149078 |
| Season | ncaa_player_box + ncaa_game · lib/scout/ejes.mjs | NCAA 2025-26 · Cincinnati Bearcats | 31 of 33 games with a box score |
| Opponent quality | lib/draft/sql_rival.mjs (ncaa_game, ≥10 pj) | NCAA 2025-26 | 31 / 31 |
| z | ncaa_season_profile (scripts/scout_perfil_ncaa.mjs) | NCAA 2025-26 | standardization from the Scout census |
| SW rank | lib/draft/modelo.ts · lib/draft/calibracion.json | 2005-2021 | n=26,550 · AUC 0.897 |
| The player within his team | ncaa_player_box (rolDe · fórmulas B-R) | NCAA 2025-26 | 31 pj |
| The team | ncaa_standings · ncaa_ranking · ncaa_game | NCAA 2025-26 | Big 12 Conference |
| Comparables and outlook (Scout) | scout_nba_outlook (scripts/scout_outlook.mjs) | NCAA 2025-26 | 31 pj · 2026-09-13 |
| Physical | ncaa_player (ESPN, 2026) | NCAA 2025-26 | 218 cm · 113 kg |
| Rank history | draft_sw_board_snapshot · draft_board_mock_snapshot (mig 0329) | 2027 | 7 |
Declared limits
- · No adjustment for age or class (the historical census lacks them): bias in favour of the productive veteran.
- · Physical measurements and the combine are not in the model: they are shown as context.
- · Calibrated on the NCAA only: ACB, EuroLeague and FIBA are not scored.
- · The mocks' history starts on 2026-09-13: before that date there is none (the ingester overwrote them daily).