Usage Score
29
Player Dossier
2008-2011Michigan State
B.J. Cunningham
WR • 6'2" • Westerville, OH, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
B.J. Cunningham reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
91.2
Consistency
74.7
Season Value
73.7
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason · Michigan State
080809101111
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Michigan State
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Ohio State
Scouting Read
Best season and peak-game context are pinned here so the rest of the page can stay analytical without losing the headline story.
B.J. Cunningham, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason · Michigan State. B.J. Cunningham reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason
Michigan State paired 1,306 primary output with 91.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
2011 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 91.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2011 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Ohio State
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 92.3th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Season Workbench
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2011 Postseason · Michigan State
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
100.5
Efficiency
91.2
Usage
29
Consistency
74.7
Best Game by takeover score
Georgia
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
12345678910111213
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Georgia: 66. Unknown: 130. Florida Atlantic: 73. Notre Dame: 158. Central Michigan: 67. Ohio State: 154. Michigan: 39. Wisconsin: 102. Minnesota: 104. Iowa: 46. Indiana: 132. Northwestern: 120. Wisconsin: 115
Volume vs Efficiency
Low volume / high quality
High volume / high quality
Low volume / lower quality
High volume / lower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Georgia: 7 by 62.9. Unknown: 9 by 96.3. Florida Atlantic: 5 by 97.3. Notre Dame: 12 by 87.8. Central Michigan: 3 by 100. Ohio State: 9 by 100. Michigan: 4 by 65. Wisconsin: 6 by 100. Minnesota: 3 by 100. Iowa: 4 by 76.7. Indiana: 6 by 100. Northwestern: 6 by 100. Wisconsin: 5 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins90.3 · n=10 · -46.2 vs Losses
Losses136.5 · n=2 · +46.2 vs Wins
First Half98.1 · n=7 · -5.0 vs Second Half
Second Half103.2 · n=6 · +5.0 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Ohio State
Best efficiency game
100 vs Wisconsin
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mon 1/2 | @ Georgia | W 33-30 | — | 7 | 66 | 9.4 | 9.40 | 0 | 22 |
| Sun 12/4 | vs Wisconsin100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | L 39-42 | — | 5 | 115 | 23.2 | 23 | 3 | 44 |
| Sat 11/26 | @ Northwestern100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 31-17 | — | 6 | 120 | 20 | 20 | 2 | 33 |
| Sat 11/19 | vs Indiana100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 55-3 | — | 6 | 132 | 22 | 22 | 2 | 63 |
| Sat 11/12 | @ Iowa2+ TD | W 37-21 | — | 4 | 46 | 11.5 | 11.50 | 2 | 22 |
| Sat 11/5 | vs Minnesota100 receiving yards | W 31-24 | — | 3 | 104 | 26.8 | 34.70 | 0 | 69 |
| Sun 10/23 | vs Wisconsin100 receiving yards | W 37-31 | — | 6 | 102 | 17 | 17 | 1 | 35 |
| Sat 10/15 | vs Michigan | W 28-14 | — | 4 | 39 | 9.8 | 9.80 | 0 | 16 |
| Sat 10/1 | @ Ohio State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 10-7 | — | 9 | 154 | 17.1 | 17.10 | 1 | 52 |
| Sat 9/24 | vs Central Michigan | W 45-7 | — | 3 | 67 | 22.3 | 22.30 | 0 | 54 |
| Sat 9/17 | @ Notre Dame100 receiving yards · High volume | L 13-31 | — | 12 | 158 | 12.1 | 13.20 | 0 | 25 |
| Sat 9/10 | vs Florida Atlantic | W 44-0 | — | 5 | 73 | 14.6 | 14.60 | 0 | 23 |
| Fri 9/2 | vs Unknown100 receiving yards · High volume | — | — | 9 | 130 | 14.4 | 14.40 | 1 | 55 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Michigan State
2008-2011
Opening stop
Season Progression
200820082009201020112011
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 Postseason | Michigan State | 528 | 78.5 | 21.4 | — |
| 2008 Regular Season | Michigan State | 528 | 78.5 | 21.4 | 0 |
| 2009 Regular Season | Michigan State | 641 | 76.8 | 20.5 | 113 |
| 2010 Regular Season | Michigan State | 611 | 75.1 | 22.3 | -30 |
| 2011 Postseason | Michigan State | 1,306 | 91.2 | 29 | 695 |
| 2011 Regular Season | Michigan State | 1,306 | 91.2 | 29 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Ohio State
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
154
Primary metric
154 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Iowa
76
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
76 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Eastern Michigan
76
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
76 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Purdue
92
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
92 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Unknown
130
Primary metric
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
130 receiving yards with a 96.3 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2011 Postseason · Michigan State
1,306 primary output · 91.2 efficiency · 29 usage
73.7
#2
2011 Regular Season · Michigan State
73.7
1,306 primary · 91.2 efficiency · 29 usage
#3
2009 Regular Season · Michigan State
55.3
641 primary · 76.8 efficiency · 20.5 usage
Milestones
10
100+ receiving yards
4
8+ catch outings
5
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
3,086
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 50 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.