Usage Score
35.8
Player Dossier
2008-2011Baylor
Kendall Wright
WR • 5'10" • Pittsburg, TX, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Kendall Wright reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
86.3
Consistency
72.3
Season Value
73.3
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason · Baylor
080910101111
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Baylor
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: TCU
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.
Kendall Wright, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason · Baylor. Kendall Wright reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason
Baylor paired 1,663 primary output with 86.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
2011 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 86.3 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: TCU
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 84.6th 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 · Baylor
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
127.9
Efficiency
86.3
Usage
35.8
Consistency
72.3
Best Game by takeover score
Washington
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. Washington: 91. TCU: 189. Unknown: 123. Rice: 108. Kansas State: 201. Iowa State: 69. Texas A&M: 67. Oklahoma State: 117. Missouri: 97. Kansas: 102. Oklahoma: 208. Texas Tech: 125. Texas: 166
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. Washington: 7 by 86.7. TCU: 12 by 100. Unknown: 8 by 100. Rice: 11 by 65.5. Kansas State: 9 by 100. Iowa State: 8 by 57.5. Texas A&M: 7 by 63.8. Oklahoma State: 11 by 70.9. Missouri: 7 by 92.4. Kansas: 8 by 85. Oklahoma: 8 by 100. Texas Tech: 6 by 100. Texas: 6 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins128.3 · n=9 · +0 vs Losses
Losses128.3 · n=3 · +0 vs Wins
First Half121.1 · n=7 · -14.7 vs Second Half
Second Half135.8 · n=6 · +14.7 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
TCU
Best efficiency game
100 vs Texas
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 12/30 | vs Washington | W 67-56 | — | 7 | 91 | 10.8 | 13 | 1 | 48 |
| Sat 12/3 | vs Texas100 receiving yards | W 48-24 | — | 6 | 166 | 27.7 | 27.70 | 1 | 59 |
| Sun 11/27 | vs Texas Tech100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 66-42 | — | 6 | 125 | 20.8 | 20.80 | 2 | 46 |
| Sun 11/20 | vs Oklahoma100 receiving yards · High volume | W 45-38 | — | 8 | 208 | 26 | 26 | 1 | 87 |
| Sat 11/12 | @ Kansas100 receiving yards · High volume | W 31-30 | — | 8 | 102 | 11.1 | 12.80 | 0 | 25 |
| Sat 11/5 | vs Missouri | W 42-39 | — | 7 | 97 | 13.9 | 13.90 | 0 | 23 |
| Sat 10/29 | @ Oklahoma State100 receiving yards · High volume | L 24-59 | — | 11 | 117 | 10.5 | 10.60 | 0 | 34 |
| Sat 10/15 | @ Texas A&M | L 28-55 | — | 7 | 67 | 9.6 | 9.60 | 1 | 19 |
| Sat 10/8 | vs Iowa StateHigh volume | W 49-26 | — | 8 | 69 | 8.4 | 8.60 | 1 | 20 |
| Sat 10/1 | @ Kansas State100 receiving yards · High volume | L 35-36 | — | 9 | 201 | 22 | 22.30 | 3 | 43 |
| Sat 9/24 | vs Rice100 receiving yards · High volume | W 56-31 | — | 11 | 108 | 9.8 | 9.80 | 1 | 24 |
| Sat 9/17 | vs Unknown100 receiving yards · High volume | — | — | 8 | 123 | 14 | 15.40 | 1 | 66 |
| Sat 9/3 | vs TCU100 receiving yards · High volume | W 50-48 | — | 12 | 189 | 15.8 | 15.80 | 2 | 36 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Baylor
2008-2011
Opening stop
Season Progression
200820092010201020112011
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 Regular Season | Baylor | 649 | 71.3 | 31.6 | — |
| 2009 Regular Season | Baylor | 740 | 68.4 | 25.2 | 91 |
| 2010 Postseason | Baylor | 952 | 67.8 | 24.4 | 212 |
| 2010 Regular Season | Baylor | 952 | 67.8 | 24.4 | 0 |
| 2011 Postseason | Baylor | 1,663 | 86.3 | 35.8 | 711 |
| 2011 Regular Season | Baylor | 1,663 | 86.3 | 35.8 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
TCU
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
189
Primary metric
189 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Oklahoma
208
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
208 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Kansas State
201
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
201 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Iowa State
132
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
132 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Missouri
149
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
149 receiving yards with a 99.3 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2011 Postseason · Baylor
1,663 primary output · 86.3 efficiency · 35.8 usage
73.3
#2
2011 Regular Season · Baylor
73.3
1,663 primary · 86.3 efficiency · 35.8 usage
#3
2010 Postseason · Baylor
53.6
952 primary · 67.8 efficiency · 24.4 usage
Milestones
19
100+ receiving yards
13
8+ catch outings
7
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2008 · Rating 0.9082
Pittsburg · Pittsburg, TX
- Committed To
- Baylor
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2008
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
4,004
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.