Usage Score
3.2
Player Dossier
2016-2019Michigan State
Josh Butler
CB • 6'0" • 182 lbs • Mesquite, TX, USA
Ball-hunting defenderSplash play profile
Josh Butler shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 18.8 disruption score.
Efficiency
18.8
Consistency
37.9
Season Value
21.2
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2018 Postseason · Michigan State
161717181819
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Michigan State
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Indiana
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.
Josh Butler, CB. Best season Best season by value score: 2018 Postseason · Michigan State. Josh Butler shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 18.8 disruption score.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2018 Postseason
Michigan State paired 3 primary output with 17.9 efficiency.
Supporting note
2019 Regular Season role shape
impact-led usage with 18.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2019 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Indiana
Win with 3 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet. 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.
2019 Regular Season · Michigan State
Games
9
Havoc Plays / G
0.7
Efficiency
18.8
Usage
3.2
Consistency
37.9
Best Game by takeover score
Michigan
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. Tulsa: 0. Western Michigan: 1. Arizona State: 0.5. Northwestern: 0. Indiana: 3. Wisconsin: 1. Penn State: 0. Illinois: 0. Michigan: 1
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. Tulsa: 4 by 16.7. Western Michigan: 1 by 14.2. Arizona State: 4 by 21.7. Northwestern: 5 by 20.8. Indiana: 3 by 42.5. Wisconsin: 2 by 18.3. Penn State: 4 by 16.7. Illinois: 1 by 4.2. Michigan: 1 by 14.2
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins1 · Games = 4 · +0.5 vs Losses
Losses0.5 · Games = 5 · -0.5 vs Wins
First Half0.9 · Games = 5 · +0.4 vs Second Half
Second Half0.5 · Games = 4 · -0.4 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
9 games
Featured metric
Havoc Plays
Top game by takeover score
Indiana
Best efficiency game
42.5 vs Indiana
| Result | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 11/16 | @ Michigan | L 10-44 | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sat 11/9 | vs Illinois | L 34-37 | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/26 | vs Penn State | L 7-28 | 4 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/12 | @ Wisconsin | L 0-38 | 2 | 2 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/28 | vs Indiana | W 40-31 | 3 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 3 | — | — |
| Sat 9/21 | @ Northwestern | W 31-10 | 5 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/14 | vs Arizona State | L 7-10 | 4 | 1 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/7 | vs Western Michigan | W 51-17 | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Fri 8/30 | vs Tulsa | W 28-7 | 4 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Michigan State
2016-2019
Opening stop
Season Progression
201620172017201820182019
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 Regular Season | Michigan State | 2 | 9.9 | 4.3 | — |
| 2017 Postseason | Michigan State | 4 | 12.9 | 2.1 | 2 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Michigan State | 4 | 12.9 | 2.1 | 0 |
| 2018 Postseason | Michigan State | 3 | 17.9 | 1.8 | -1 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Michigan State | 3 | 17.9 | 1.8 | 0 |
| 2019 Regular Season | Michigan State | 6.5 | 18.8 | 3.2 | 3.5 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Indiana
Win with 3 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3
Primary metric
3 disruption/tackle impact with 48.1 takeover score.
#2
Northwestern
1
Primary metric
Loss with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 44.1 takeover score.
#3
Indiana
1
Primary metric
Win with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 43.2 takeover score.
#4
Bowling Green
1
Primary metric
Win with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 41.7 takeover score.
#5
Arizona State
1
Primary metric
Loss with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 41.6 takeover score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2018 Postseason · Michigan State
3 primary output · 17.9 efficiency · 1.8 usage
25.9
#2
2018 Regular Season · Michigan State
25.9
3 primary · 17.9 efficiency · 1.8 usage
#3
2017 Postseason · Michigan State
21.8
4 primary · 12.9 efficiency · 2.1 usage
Milestones
0
Impact games
0
Splash games
0
10+ tackle games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2015 · Rating 0.8942
West Mesquite · Mesquite, TX
- Committed To
- Michigan State
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2015
Career Facts
1
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
54
Career Tackles
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 25 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.