Texas A&M

20-12

GAME THAT MATTERSAT

69.8%Texas A&M

30.2%Rutgers

MMH WIN PROBABILITY

MODEL SPREADTexas A&M -5.8

PROJECTED TOTAL152.6

MODEL MONEYLINETexas A&M -231

Rutgers

13-20

MMH MODEL PROJECTION

Projected ScoreTexas A&M 79

Projected Total152.6

Projected ScoreRutgers 73

Team Comparison

Texas A&MMetricRutgers

58MMH Power Index45.9

116.1Offensive Efficiency104.2

108.4Defensive Efficiency112.2

7.7Net Efficiency-8.0

4.8Strength of Schedule3.9

-7.2Last 10 Net Efficiency-1.6

69.1Tempo67.4

53.5%Effective FG%47.4%

14.8%Turnover Rate15.0%

31.7%Offensive Rebound %29.2%

37.5%Free Throw Rate36.3%

5.3Average Margin-5.4

MMH GAME INTELLIGENCE

MODEL READ

Texas A&M HAS THE EDGE

WIN PROBABILITY69.8%

STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE

10–1

MMH comparison metrics

WHERE THE EDGE COMES FROMTexas A&M holds the advantage in MMH Power Index (58.0–45.9), offensive efficiency (116.1–104.2), defensive efficiency (108.4–112.2), net efficiency (7.7–-8.0).

Rutgers COUNTERS WITHrecent form (-1.6–-7.2).

Final

Texas A&M

81—77

Rutgers

Texas A&M by 4 • 77.1 estimated possessions

Team Stats

Texas A&MTEAM STATRutgers

24-56FG28-68

43.0%FG%41.0%

2-153PT6-26

13.0%3PT%23.0%

31-42FT15-17

74.0%FT%88.0%

35Rebounds42

12Offensive Rebounds15

9Assists15

13Turnovers16

5Steals7

6Blocks1

19Fouls29

Player Box Score

Texas A&M

Player	Pos	Min	FG	3PT	FT	REB	AST	STL	BLK	PTS
Wade Taylor IV	Guard	35	7-14	2-8	8-8	0	5	0	0	24
Henry Coleman III	Forward	27	3-4	0-0	5-5	6	0	0	0	11
Solomon Washington	F	24	4-6	0-0	3-3	5	1	0	4	11
Manny Obaseki	Guard	19	4-9	0-0	3-6	5	2	0	1	11
Zhuric Phelps	Guard	23	3-12	0-2	2-4	2	0	0	0	8
Andersson Garcia	Forward	26	2-4	0-0	2-2	6	1	1	1	6
Pharrel Payne	F	8	1-2	0-0	3-7	2	0	0	0	5
CJ Wilcher	Guard	8	0-2	0-2	4-5	0	0	1	0	4
Hayden Hefner	Guard	10	0-0	0-0	1-2	2	0	2	0	1
Jace Carter	Not Available	20	0-3	0-3	0-0	1	0	1	0	0

Rutgers

Player	Pos	Min	FG	3PT	FT	REB	AST	STL	BLK	PTS
Ace Bailey	Guard	35	10-20	2-8	2-2	10	1	2	0	24
Jeremiah Williams	G	26	7-8	1-2	5-6	4	1	1	0	20
Dylan Harper	Guard	36	6-20	2-6	4-4	3	3	0	1	18
Lathan Sommerville	C	13	3-4	0-0	2-3	4	1	0	0	8
PJ Hayes IV	Guard	8	1-5	1-5	0-0	0	0	1	0	3
Jordan Derkack	G	24	1-3	0-1	0-0	5	4	1	0	2
Emmanuel Ogbole	C	15	0-0	0-0	2-2	6	0	0	0	2
Dylan Grant	F	14	0-5	0-2	0-0	1	1	1	0	0
Zach Martini	Center	12	0-0	0-0	0-0	2	0	1	0	0
Jamichael Davis	G	11	0-2	0-1	0-0	0	3	0	0	0
Tyson Acuff	Guard	6	0-1	0-1	0-0	0	1	0	0	0

Advanced Game Stats

77.1Possessions77.1

105.1Offensive Efficiency99.9

99.9Defensive Efficiency105.1

5.2Net Efficiency-5.2

44.6%Effective FG%45.6%

53.3%True Shooting %50.6%

16.9%Turnover Rate20.8%

75.0%Free Throw Rate25.0%

26.8%3-Point Rate38.2%

0.69Assist / Turnover0.94

Game Summary

Texas A&M won by 4 points. The game played at approximately 77.1 possessions. The largest advanced-stat separations came in Free Throw Rate, Net Efficiency, Offensive Efficiency.

Advanced game metrics are calculated by Mid-Major Hoops from team box-score totals. Possessions are estimated. Highlighted advanced values indicate the stronger result for that metric; lower is better for defensive efficiency and turnover rate.