Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2013 Regular Season
UConn paired 160 primary output with 50.7 efficiency.
Player Stats
Martin Hyppolite 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
- 244
- Rushing yards
- 234
- Receiving yards
- 10
- Touchdowns
- 2
Season Ledger
Crawlable season-by-season stats
| Season | Team | Games | Scrimmage | Rush Yds | Rec Yds | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 Regular Season | UConn | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
| 2010 Regular Season | UConn | 1 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 33.4 |
| 2011 Regular Season | UConn | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
| 2012 Regular Season | UConn | 6 | 79 | 69 | 10 | 1 | 27.9 |
| 2013 Regular Season | UConn | 10 | 160 | 160 | 0 | 1 | 51.6 |
Player insights
Supporting note
2013 Regular Season role shape
backfield-heavy usage with 50.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2013 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Cincinnati
Loss with 40 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.
2013 Regular Season · UConn
Games
10
Scrimmage Yards / G
16
Efficiency
50.7
Usage
6.3
Consistency
37.9
Best Game by takeover score
Cincinnati
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. Maryland: 1. Michigan: 7. Buffalo: 29. South Florida: 8. Cincinnati: 40. UCF: 7. Louisville: 10. Temple: 19. Rutgers: 4. Memphis: 35
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. Maryland: 1 by 10.4. Michigan: 1 by 72.9. Buffalo: 8 by 37.8. South Florida: 3 by 27.8. Cincinnati: 6 by 69.4. UCF: 3 by 24.3. Louisville: 1 by 91.7. Temple: 1 by 100. Rutgers: 2 by 20.8. Memphis: 7 by 52.1
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins19.3 · Games = 3 · +4.8 vs Losses
Losses14.6 · Games = 7 · -4.8 vs Wins
Next best actions
Keep exploring Martin Hyppolite
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.