Usage Score
5.3
Player Dossier
2014-2018Michigan State
Matt Sokol
TE • 6'6" • 255 lbs • Rochester, MI, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Matt Sokol reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
76.2
Consistency
72.9
Season Value
50.4
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason · Michigan State
14151617171818
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 7
- Program Path
- Michigan State
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Notre Dame
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.
Matt Sokol, TE. Best season Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason · Michigan State. Matt Sokol reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Matt Sokol played TE for Michigan State. Across 5 tracked seasons, Matt Sokol recorded -4 rushing yards, 348 receiving yards, and 9 tackles. His top tracked season came in 2017 with Michigan State.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason
Michigan State paired 222 primary output with 71.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
2018 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 76.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2018 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Penn State
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th 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.
2018 Postseason · Michigan State
Games
8
Receiving Yards / G
12.5
Efficiency
76.2
Usage
5.3
Consistency
72.9
Best Game by takeover score
Oregon
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. Oregon: 10. Arizona State: 0. Central Michigan: 6. Northwestern: 14. Penn State: 25. Purdue: 13. Nebraska: 14. Rutgers: 18
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. Oregon: 1 by 66.7. Central Michigan: 1 by 40. Northwestern: 2 by 46.7. Penn State: 1 by 100. Purdue: 1 by 86.7. Nebraska: 1 by 93.3. Rutgers: 1 by 100
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins15.5 · Games = 4 · +6 vs Losses
Losses9.5 · Games = 4 · -6 vs Wins
First Half7.5 · Games = 4 · -10 vs Second Half
Second Half17.5 · Games = 4 · +10 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
8 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Penn State
Best efficiency game
100 vs Rutgers
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mon 12/31 | @ Oregon | L 6-7 | — | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| Sat 11/24 | vs Rutgers | W 14-10 | — | 1 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 1 | 18 |
| Sat 11/17 | @ Nebraska | L 6-9 | — | 1 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
| Sat 10/27 | vs Purdue | W 23-13 | — | 1 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
| Sat 10/13 | @ Penn State | W 21-17 | — | 1 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 0 | 25 |
| Sat 10/6 | vs Northwestern | L 19-29 | — | 2 | 14 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 9 |
| Sat 9/29 | vs Central Michigan | W 31-20 | — | 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
| Sun 9/9 | @ Arizona State | L 13-16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Michigan State
2014-2018
Opening stop
Season Progression
2014201520162017201720182018
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 Regular Season | Michigan State | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2015 Regular Season | Michigan State | 0 | — | — | 0 |
| 2016 Regular Season | Michigan State | 26 | 83.4 | 4.2 | 26 |
| 2017 Postseason | Michigan State | 222 | 71.8 | 13.9 | 196 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Michigan State | 222 | 71.8 | 13.9 | 0 |
| 2018 Postseason | Michigan State | 100 | 76.2 | 5.3 | -122 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Michigan State | 100 | 76.2 | 5.3 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Notre Dame
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
35
Primary metric
35 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Penn State
25
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
25 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Illinois
16
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
16 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Rutgers
18
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
18 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Bowling Green
31
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
31 receiving yards with a 68.9 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2017 Postseason · Michigan State
222 primary output · 71.8 efficiency · 13.9 usage
62.5
#2
2017 Regular Season · Michigan State
62.5
222 primary · 71.8 efficiency · 13.9 usage
#3
2018 Postseason · Michigan State
50.4
100 primary · 76.2 efficiency · 5.3 usage
Milestones
0
100+ receiving yards
0
8+ catch outings
0
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2022 · Rating 0.8837
Rabun Gap-Nacoochee · London, EN
- Committed To
- Vanderbilt
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2022
Career Facts
1
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
348
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 24 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.