Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2008 Postseason
Michigan State paired 81 primary output with 58.9 efficiency.
Player Stats
Andrew Hawken College Stats
Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.
Stat Footprint
Career production snapshot
- Scrimmage yards
- 237
- Rushing yards
- 1
- Receiving yards
- 236
- Touchdowns
- 3
Season Ledger
Crawlable season-by-season stats
| Season | Team | Games | Scrimmage | Rush Yds | Rec Yds | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 Regular Season | Michigan State | 7 | 83 | 2 | 81 | 1 | 54.4 |
| 2008 Postseason | Michigan State | 7 | 14 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 56 |
| 2008 Regular Season | Michigan State | 7 | 67 | 0 | 67 | 1 | 56 |
| 2009 Regular Season | Michigan State | 8 | 73 | -1 | 74 | 1 | 47.3 |
Player insights
Supporting note
2009 Regular Season role shape
backfield-heavy usage with 46.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value cooled off
2009 Regular Season fell back from the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Wisconsin
Loss with 25 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Season Workbench
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2009 Regular Season · Michigan State
Games
8
Scrimmage Yards / G
9.1
Efficiency
46.7
Usage
3.6
Consistency
44.3
Best Game by takeover score
Wisconsin
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Active game
Hover over a point
Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.
Game-by-Game Trend
Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Central Michigan: 6. Wisconsin: 25. Michigan: 6. Illinois: 11. Northwestern: 13. Iowa: 3. Minnesota: 2. Purdue: 7
Volume vs Efficiency
Each dot is a game. Farther right means the player carried more of the workload, and higher means they were more efficient with those chances.
Low volumeHigh quality
High volumeHigh quality
Low volumeLower quality
High volumeLower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Central Michigan: 1 by 50. Wisconsin: 3 by 69.4. Michigan: 1 by 50. Illinois: 2 by 45.8. Northwestern: 1 by 100. Iowa: 1 by 25. Minnesota: 2 by 4.2. Purdue: 2 by 29.2
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins9.3 · Games = 4 · +0.3 vs Losses
Losses9 · Games = 4 · -0.3 vs Wins
Next best actions
Keep exploring Andrew Hawken
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.