Usage Score
16.9
Player Dossier
2019-2022UTEP
Cal Wallerstedt
LB • 5'10" • 223 lbs • Harrisburg, NC, USA
Ball-hunting defenderSplash play profile
Cal Wallerstedt shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 51.5 disruption score.
Efficiency
51.5
Consistency
38.9
Season Value
32.9
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2020 Regular Season · UTEP
19202122
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 4
- Program Path
- UTEP
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Middle Tennessee
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.
Cal Wallerstedt, LB. Best season Best season by value score: 2020 Regular Season · UTEP. Cal Wallerstedt shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 51.5 disruption score.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2020 Regular Season
UTEP paired 0 primary output with 4.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
2022 Regular Season role shape
impact-led usage with 51.5 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2022 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Middle Tennessee
Loss with backfield disruption leading the way. It landed in the 91.7th 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.
2022 Regular Season · UTEP
Games
12
Havoc Plays / G
2.0
Efficiency
51.5
Usage
16.9
Consistency
38.9
Best Game by takeover score
UTSA
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
123456789101112
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Oklahoma: 2. North Texas: 0. New Mexico State: 1. New Mexico: 5.5. Boise State: 1.5. Charlotte: 0. Louisiana Tech: 0.5. Florida Atlantic: 1. Middle Tennessee: 4.5. Rice: 2.5. Florida International: 1. UTSA: 4
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. Oklahoma: 5 by 40.8. North Texas: 2 by 8.3. New Mexico State: 9 by 47.5. New Mexico: 7 by 79.2. Boise State: 9 by 52.5. Charlotte: 8 by 33.3. Louisiana Tech: 4 by 21.7. Florida Atlantic: 11 by 55.8. Middle Tennessee: 14 by 95. Rice: 10 by 66.7. Florida International: 7 by 39.2. UTSA: 9 by 77.5
Split Comparison
Wins0.9 · n=5 · -1.8 vs Losses
Losses2.7 · n=7 · +1.8 vs Wins
First Half1.7 · n=6 · -0.6 vs Second Half
Second Half2.3 · n=6 · +0.6 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
12 games
Featured metric
Havoc Plays
Top game by takeover score
Middle Tennessee
Best efficiency game
95 vs Middle Tennessee
| Result | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 11/26 | @ UTSASplash game | L 31-34 | 9 | 2 | — | 2.50 | 1.50 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/19 | vs Florida International | W 40-6 | 7 | 2 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Thu 11/3 | @ Rice10+ tackles | L 30-37 | 10 | 5 | — | 1.50 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 10/30 | vs Middle Tennessee10+ tackles · 2+ sacks | L 13-24 | 14 | 6 | — | 2.50 | 2 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/22 | vs Florida Atlantic10+ tackles | W 24-21 | 11 | 2 | — | 0.50 | 0.50 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/8 | @ Louisiana Tech | L 31-41 | 4 | 0 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 10/1 | @ Charlotte | W 41-35 | 8 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/24 | vs Boise State | W 27-10 | 9 | 1 | — | 0.50 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sun 9/18 | @ New Mexico2+ sacks · Splash game | L 10-27 | 7 | 4 | — | 3.50 | 2 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 9/11 | vs New Mexico State | W 20-13 | 9 | 3 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/3 | @ Oklahoma | L 13-45 | 5 | 2 | — | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sun 8/28 | vs North Texas | L 13-31 | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
UTEP
2019-2022
Opening stop
Season Progression
2019202020212022
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 Regular Season | UTEP | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2020 Regular Season | UTEP | 0 | 4.2 | 1 | 0 |
| 2021 Regular Season | UTEP | 0 | 4.2 | 1 | 0 |
| 2022 Regular Season | UTEP | 23.5 | 51.5 | 16.9 | 23.5 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Middle Tennessee
Loss with backfield disruption leading the way.
4.5
Primary metric
4.5 disruption/tackle impact with 68.6 takeover score.
#2
New Mexico
5.5
Primary metric
Loss with backfield disruption leading the way.
5.5 disruption/tackle impact with 67.3 takeover score.
#3
UTSA
4
Primary metric
Loss with 4 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
4 disruption/tackle impact with 59.1 takeover score.
#4
Rice
2.5
Primary metric
Loss with 2.5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2.5 disruption/tackle impact with 45.7 takeover score.
#5
Oklahoma
2
Primary metric
Loss with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2 disruption/tackle impact with 33.6 takeover score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2020 Regular Season · UTEP
0 primary output · 4.2 efficiency · 1 usage
35.1
#2
2021 Regular Season · UTEP
35.1
0 primary · 4.2 efficiency · 1 usage
#3
2022 Regular Season · UTEP
32.9
23.5 primary · 51.5 efficiency · 16.9 usage
Milestones
2
Impact games
3
Splash games
3
10+ tackle games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
2★
Class 2018 · Rating 0.7697
Hickory Ridge · Harrisburg, NC
- Committed To
- UTEP
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2018
Career Facts
1
Career teams
4
Seasons tracked
99
Career Tackles
Data Context
Coverage spans 4 tracked seasons, 16 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.