They sure did. Listen not saying any of those 3 players had even average games, Hyatt did not even look like a middle school player. At least Caleb and Paul occasionally put the ball in the hoop
Andre Hyatt- ZERO points
- Thread starter RUforJERSEY
- Start date
i'm not a huge Hyatt fan but he's been playing well last couple weeks, yeah he had a bad stinker but if relying on this guy to be your main scorer the games are over before they begin
one of this threes from corner came out of his hands weird i thought
one of this threes from corner came out of his hands weird i thought
1 and 4 and playing like **** since he got injured. Time to stop denying what happened here.
We won twice with him injured….we were without him in 2nd half of michigan st game and didn’t miss a beat.
It’s very easy to see what’s happening. We can’t make layups suddenly. We can’t make free throws suddenly. We’re in a slump…with or without mag.
To be fair, much of the team couldn't make layups before he went out, either, and he was our most efficient player from 2P range.
The season-worst FT% was definitely new, though.
His facial expressions from the beginning of the game were uncharacteristic. He looked confused and detached. I hope he's OK.
What is TOS?
I'm sure he'll have some inconsistencies and issues like almost any freshman, but I think most fans here underrate what an impact he'll have, they're just not used to having such nice things.
if a guy giving 10 points a game gives you zero then its a problem if there are only 7 usable players on the team
Lousy game for Hyatt. I hope whatever the issue was clears up before Sunday's game. He was great at Wisconsin. We will need "good Hyatt" to compete at Penn State.
The other site
Exactlyyy. We have no depth so no room for error when someone we rely on has an off game. If Hyatt plays like that then Mag likely plays big minutes and it doesn't hurt as much as it does now that he isn't an option
The roster is full of inconsistent players and we desperately need consistency in order to get wins now
Rooting for Andre. I had a feeling he’d brush it off and come out on fire In Half two. It didn’t happen. That’s ok. On to the next one.
We need Andre and we are here for him.
We need Andre and we are here for him.
Willing has nothing to do with it. they are not talented enough to do it.
We know how you feel about Caleb but you have to be kidding this time dude. You deserve to be called out here in a major way.
Caleb’s 2 bad passes (and yeah they both sucked) were his only turnovers in the game. The first one did not even end up hurting us since Michigan did not score on the fast break run out. He made up for the second one on the very next play with a steal and fast break lay up. Now he was obviously not 100% and I wouldn’t say this was a good game from Caleb - but you somehow think those 2 turnovers had more of an impact on the game outcome than Hyatt going 0-5 (all absolute bricks) plus 2 turnovers of his own and worst of all, only 1 rebound in 28 minutes of action? Seriously?
By the way - Paul played 35 minutes and committed a total of 2 turnovers running the point in this game. And Michigan only shot 28% from 3 in the game so I wouldn’t say Paul’s perimeter defense was a big reason we lost either. Again - not close to Paul’s best game but both Caleb and Paul were good enough overall in this game for it to be a win.
Hyatt was not. 0-5 from an offense first player and only 1 rebound from a guy starting at the 3-4 is not close to good enough.
Don't waste any time here, the entire program is now dependent on the 5th starter to bail out 3 year starters at PG and multi year players as well. Mag solves all.
Hyatt has tied a game at Indiana with 2 huge FTs last year and literally won the game on Saturday at Wisconsin with a tip in/dunk.....Hyatt nor Mag was going to solve woeful FT shooting and turnovers.
Hyatt is a starter at this level and he had a horrific night. Won't be the last bad game a player has at this level either. The body of work still says 2nd most reliable shooter, 2nd most reliable shooter from 3 and unlike some phony fans who have their favorites, it's completely OK to ignore the entire team's performance and focus in Hyatt.....I get it, when the other players no-show 4 out of the last 5 games, let's focus on the 1 bad game out the last handful for Hyatt.
At some point, maybe as soon as the end of next weekend, we will have a full resume of regular season results and we can then compare the entire body of work. Keep in mind, for someone who to some fans "shouldn't start over Mag", why are you concerned about a 6th man and his contributions?? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at the 4 starters to see if they're performance was drastically better. It wasn't.....
You act like you have no agenda but you've been pushing Hyatt over Mag all yearDon't waste any time here, the entire program is now dependent on the 5th starter to bail out 3 year starters at PG and multi year players as well. Mag solves all.
Hyatt has tied a game at Indiana with 2 huge FTs last year and literally won the game on Saturday at Wisconsin with a tip in/dunk.....Hyatt nor Mag was going to solve woeful FT shooting and turnovers.
Hyatt is a starter at this level and he had a horrific night. Won't be the last bad game a player has at this level either. The body of work still says 2nd most reliable shooter, 2nd most reliable shooter from 3 and unlike some phony fans who have their favorites, it's completely OK to ignore the entire team's performance and focus in Hyatt.....I get it, when the other players no-show 4 out of the last 5 games, let's focus on the 1 bad game out the last handful for Hyatt.
At some point, maybe as soon as the end of next weekend, we will have a full resume of regular season results and we can then compare the entire body of work. Keep in mind, for someone who to some fans "shouldn't start over Mag", why are you concerned about a 6th man and his contributions?? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at the 4 starters to see if they're performance was drastically better. It wasn't.....
You're even making things up in this post to make Hyatt look better. He isn't our 2nd most reliable shooter from 2 or from 3. Check the War Room from today with the stats
Don't waste any time here, the entire program is now dependent on the 5th starter to bail out 3 year starters at PG and multi year players as well. Mag solves all.
Hyatt has tied a game at Indiana with 2 huge FTs last year and literally won the game on Saturday at Wisconsin with a tip in/dunk.....Hyatt nor Mag was going to solve woeful FT shooting and turnovers.
Hyatt is a starter at this level and he had a horrific night. Won't be the last bad game a player has at this level either. The body of work still says 2nd most reliable shooter, 2nd most reliable shooter from 3 and unlike some phony fans who have their favorites, it's completely OK to ignore the entire team's performance and focus in Hyatt.....I get it, when the other players no-show 4 out of the last 5 games, let's focus on the 1 bad game out the last handful for Hyatt.
At some point, maybe as soon as the end of next weekend, we will have a full resume of regular season results and we can then compare the entire body of work. Keep in mind, for someone who to some fans "shouldn't start over Mag", why are you concerned about a 6th man and his contributions?? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at the 4 starters to see if they're performance was drastically better. It wasn't.....
It’s not “ignoring” the other 4 real starters though. Objectively speaking, while none of the others had great games everyone else really was good enough or at least close to it (in this particular game).
Paul scored 9 points, dished 6 assists and had 3 rebounds. 2 turnovers in 35 minutes. While it wasn’t his best game, we don’t need more than this from Paul and it’s simply not true that his defense was awful. Nobody’s defense was awful. Michigan only scored 58 points and 4 of them were meaningless free throws at the end. They shot 40% from the floor overall and Paul played 35 of those minutes.
Outside of 2 bad passes, Caleb probably had as good a game as we could’ve hoped for. He didn’t practice all week and isn’t 100%. 7 points and 5 boards. Everyone complains about his shot selection - well it quite good vs. Michigan. He was 3 of 6 and 2 of the misses were with the shot clock about to go off.
Cliff had a double double and Cam almost did (11 points and 8 boards). The bottom line is that because we have no bench, we cannot afford for any of our regular rotation guys to come up completely short in all areas. And that’s what happened in this game with Hyatt. One rebound in 28 minutes is a big problem when Oskar is also playing 25 minutes and not rebounding
Last edited:
Someone on another thread said it best: he’s like Jekyll and Hyde. Some nights he shoots like a potential NBA player. Other nights like last night he shoots like he’ never played the game before.
Mag was worth at least 7-8 on offense and 4-5 on defense; thereby contributing 12-13 point difference. And before his injury was increasing output.
To your point above re: cushioning variance, Mag's availability would have meant ~30 fewer nonproductive minutes from Hyatt/Palmquist.... so tonight, it very easily could have resulted in 8-10 additional points on offense. Defensively, I don't think the dropoff from Omoruyi to Reiber would have been quite as big with Mag's help defense in the paint.
Would have been a very different game if you took 10 minutes from Hyatt and 20 from Palmquist and gave them to Mag.
Could Mag have made that much difference in one specific game where his main replacement was having the worst game of his career? Sure, why not.
That’s not the same as being worth lol 13 points a game
Across 1000 games, likely not. Across a handful of specific matchups while the rest of the team is trying to figure out how to adjust, not as far fetched as you're trying to make it.
The difference between Purdue and Minnesota is 29.59 points per 100 possessions. At an average tempo of 67.7 possessions per 40 minutes that is 20.03 points per 40 minutes. There are 5 players on the court at a time, so that is 4.01 points per player per 40 minutes, or 2.48 points per player per 24.8 minutes (Mawot Mag's minutes per game pre injury).
The claim is that his impact was more than five times this number. Yes, that is actually batshit insane.
AGAIN.....Hyatt is a spot up 3 point shooter. He is not a run around picks catch and shoot guy.
Michigan's game plan was to take away his spot up shot attempts by not helping using the man guarding Hyatt. Also, they could do it because their guards were quick enough to stay in front of Mulcahy, McConnell and Spencer without helping.
It's not brain surgery what Phil Martelli did on defense. Martelli was specifically mentioned by the 2 Michigan players for his defensive game plan.
Michigan's game plan was to take away his spot up shot attempts by not helping using the man guarding Hyatt. Also, they could do it because their guards were quick enough to stay in front of Mulcahy, McConnell and Spencer without helping.
It's not brain surgery what Phil Martelli did on defense. Martelli was specifically mentioned by the 2 Michigan players for his defensive game plan.
Major flaws in this analysis. Are you saying that every players contribution is the same so you just average it out over 5 players?
That's some pretty impressive acrobatics, lol
Any other cows you want to assume as spherical?
I'll go back to the poker analogy, which I feel is apt.
In poker, the five of clubs is not ordinarily considered a valuable card - you're not winning a hand simply by having that one card like you might with an ace or a king. Even if you have another five, a pair of fives generally isn't especially strong. For the most part, with the vast, vast majority of possible hands, swapping out the five of clubs for another card would not be impactful - there's a good chance it even improves the hand.
But, if you have four other clubs in your hand, suddenly that five is much more valuable than it would ordinarily be in other circumstances, and there would be much more impact to swapping it out for another random card - after all, there are only 8 other clubs out of 47 remaining unseen cards, so the chances of getting another club aren't great. Or if it were in the middle of a 34567 straight, it's an even greater impact as there are only 3 remaining fives out of 47 unseen cards. Losing that one card likely means dropping from a flush or straight to just the strength of your highest card.... where just a pair of twos is stronger. Though every so often you might get another club, or another five, and things come together again.
Mathematically, you could say that swapping out the five of clubs would have minimal impact to the vast majority of hands - it might have a negative impact less than 1% of the time. You might scoff at those who think swapping out that card could have significant effect.
In any given situation, the loss of that one card can have greater impact than the math would expect across thousands of hands. For hands that rely on it, the loss of it can be devastating.
Elite players are face cards - you put enough of them together, and you have a very good chance of winning a hand. We don't have a ton of face cards, so we need to make other combinations of cards work - and it feels like we're four-to-a-flush more often than not since Mag went down, which isn't going to win very often unless the other player folds.
In poker, the five of clubs is not ordinarily considered a valuable card - you're not winning a hand simply by having that one card like you might with an ace or a king. Even if you have another five, a pair of fives generally isn't especially strong. For the most part, with the vast, vast majority of possible hands, swapping out the five of clubs for another card would not be impactful - there's a good chance it even improves the hand.
But, if you have four other clubs in your hand, suddenly that five is much more valuable than it would ordinarily be in other circumstances, and there would be much more impact to swapping it out for another random card - after all, there are only 8 other clubs out of 47 remaining unseen cards, so the chances of getting another club aren't great. Or if it were in the middle of a 34567 straight, it's an even greater impact as there are only 3 remaining fives out of 47 unseen cards. Losing that one card likely means dropping from a flush or straight to just the strength of your highest card.... where just a pair of twos is stronger. Though every so often you might get another club, or another five, and things come together again.
Mathematically, you could say that swapping out the five of clubs would have minimal impact to the vast majority of hands - it might have a negative impact less than 1% of the time. You might scoff at those who think swapping out that card could have significant effect.
In any given situation, the loss of that one card can have greater impact than the math would expect across thousands of hands. For hands that rely on it, the loss of it can be devastating.
Elite players are face cards - you put enough of them together, and you have a very good chance of winning a hand. We don't have a ton of face cards, so we need to make other combinations of cards work - and it feels like we're four-to-a-flush more often than not since Mag went down, which isn't going to win very often unless the other player folds.
Ok, so what Monopoly property is Mag’s equivalent ? Ventnor ? Illinois ? Or, is Mag-less Rutgers basically a rook without a knight up against two bishops ?
Your exhausting poker analogy muddles the simple point that the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts. The question is, how much more ? Not nearly as much as some think. We didn’t have good offense even with him.
Yes, we didn't have a good offense WITH our most efficient scorer and 2nd best offensive rebounder, and now we've largely replaced his minutes with a player who hadn't earned a spot in our rotation for most of the season. But apparently that shouldn't matter as much as it has?
Uh, I'm just saying what the average is. I'm not assuming that every player is contributing exactly the average.
You guys will go to absurd lengths to deny and/or refuse to understand simple math.
Like you ****** guys think the marginal impact of Mawot Mag is more than five times the average difference between a Purdue player and a Minnesota player and then have the gall to say I'm engaging in acrobatics lmao.
And then Shelby, who knows just barely enough statistics to constantly shoot himself in the face with them, chimes in to mock me for actually knowing what a confidence interval is and how to use it.
I love this board.
And then Shelby, who knows just barely enough statistics to constantly shoot himself in the face with them, chimes in to mock me for actually knowing what a confidence interval is and how to use it.
I love this board.
Sure, on Rutgers you have very good individual defenders but they are so good as a team because they worked very well as a unit.
In Mag, you lost a guy that can guard 1-4 and even some 5's not named Dickerson or Dainja. He is disruptive. Average and Advanced Stats don't show the impact of that kind of loss. The announcers have been mentioning since Mag has been out....how, his intensity and versatility is missed. You won't find that on a stats sheet.
I've been pleasantly surprised with Hyatt's play this year. He will be fine. $$$$
Oh Fluxxie, I understand it. You already conceded the probability measures don’t take any variables into account. So, bust. Your range is phony.
Heretofore, please cite Fluxxie Interval rather than CI. That way, you can make up your own probability rules and not be refuted.
Heretofore, please cite Fluxxie Interval rather than CI. That way, you can make up your own probability rules and not be refuted.