Usage Score
6.2
Player Dossier
2016-2019Michigan State
Mike Panasiuk
DT • 6'4" • 300 lbs • Roselle, IL, USA
Ball-hunting defenderSplash play profile
Mike Panasiuk shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 21.5 disruption score.
Efficiency
21.5
Consistency
51.3
Season Value
29.3
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason · Michigan State
16171718181919
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 7
- 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.
Mike Panasiuk, DT. Best season Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason · Michigan State. Mike Panasiuk shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 21.5 disruption score.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2019 Postseason
Michigan State paired 13 primary output with 21.5 efficiency.
Supporting note
2019 Postseason role shape
impact-led usage with 21.5 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: Ohio State
Loss with 4.5 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 Postseason · Michigan State
Games
13
Havoc Plays / G
1
Efficiency
21.5
Usage
6.2
Consistency
51.3
Best Game by takeover score
Wake Forest
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. Wake Forest: 1. Tulsa: 2. Western Michigan: 0. Arizona State: 0. Northwestern: 1. Indiana: 0. Ohio State: 4.5. Wisconsin: 0. Penn State: 2. Illinois: 1. Michigan: 0. Rutgers: 0. Maryland: 1.5
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. Wake Forest: 3 by 22.5. Tulsa: 2 by 28.3. Western Michigan: 2 by 8.3. Arizona State: 3 by 12.5. Northwestern: 1 by 14.2. Indiana: 1 by 4.2. Ohio State: 7 by 74.2. Wisconsin: 1 by 4.2. Penn State: 5 by 40.8. Illinois: 1 by 14.2. Michigan: 4 by 16.7. Rutgers: 1 by 4.2. Maryland: 5 by 35.8
Split Comparison
Wins0.8 · n=7 · -0.5 vs Losses
Losses1.3 · n=6 · +0.5 vs Wins
First Half1.2 · n=7 · +0.5 vs Second Half
Second Half0.8 · n=6 · -0.5 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Havoc Plays
Top game by takeover score
Ohio State
Best efficiency game
74.2 vs Ohio State
| Result | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 12/27 | @ Wake Forest | W 27-21 | 3 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/30 | vs Maryland | W 19-16 | 5 | 3 | — | 1.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/23 | @ Rutgers | W 27-0 | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/16 | @ Michigan | L 10-44 | 4 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/9 | vs Illinois | L 34-37 | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sat 10/26 | vs Penn State | L 7-28 | 5 | 2 | — | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/12 | @ Wisconsin | L 0-38 | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/5 | @ Ohio StateSplash game | L 10-34 | 7 | 5 | — | 3.50 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/28 | vs Indiana | W 40-31 | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/21 | @ Northwestern | W 31-10 | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/14 | vs Arizona State | L 7-10 | 3 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/7 | vs Western Michigan | W 51-17 | 2 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Fri 8/30 | vs TulsaSplash game | W 28-7 | 2 | 2 | — | 2 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Michigan State
2016-2019
Opening stop
Season Progression
2016201720172018201820192019
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 Regular Season | Michigan State | 1 | 13.7 | 3.2 | — |
| 2017 Postseason | Michigan State | 2.5 | 12.9 | 5.1 | 1.5 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Michigan State | 2.5 | 12.9 | 5.1 | 0 |
| 2018 Postseason | Michigan State | 11.5 | 18.3 | 5.8 | 9 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Michigan State | 11.5 | 18.3 | 5.8 | 0 |
| 2019 Postseason | Michigan State | 13 | 21.5 | 6.2 | 1.5 |
| 2019 Regular Season | Michigan State | 13 | 21.5 | 6.2 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Ohio State
Loss with 4.5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
4.5
Primary metric
4.5 disruption/tackle impact with 67.1 takeover score.
#2
Oregon
3.5
Primary metric
Loss with 3.5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3.5 disruption/tackle impact with 53 takeover score.
#3
Ohio State
1
Primary metric
Loss with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 50 takeover score.
#4
Ohio State
1
Primary metric
Loss with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 49.9 takeover score.
#5
Notre Dame
1
Primary metric
Loss with 1 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
1 disruption/tackle impact with 45.2 takeover score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2019 Postseason · Michigan State
13 primary output · 21.5 efficiency · 6.2 usage
29.3
#2
2019 Regular Season · Michigan State
29.3
13 primary · 21.5 efficiency · 6.2 usage
#3
2018 Postseason · Michigan State
25.2
11.5 primary · 18.3 efficiency · 5.8 usage
Milestones
1
Impact games
3
Splash games
0
10+ tackle games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2016 · Rating 0.886
Lake Park · Roselle, IL
- Committed To
- Michigan State
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2016
Career Facts
1
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
100
Career Tackles
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 40 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.