Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2013 Postseason
Bowling Green paired 908 primary output with 92.8 efficiency.
Player Stats
Shaun Joplin College Stats
Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.
Stat Footprint
Career production snapshot
- Receiving yards
- 1,850
- Receptions
- 116
- Touchdowns
- 8
Season Ledger
Crawlable season-by-season stats
| Season | Team | Games | Rec | Rec Yds | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 Regular Season | Bowling Green | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 47.8 |
| 2011 Regular Season | Bowling Green | 11 | 21 | 292 | 1 | 52.6 |
| 2012 Postseason | Bowling Green | 12 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 71 |
| 2012 Regular Season | Bowling Green | 12 | 39 | 629 | 4 | 71 |
| 2013 Postseason | Bowling Green | 14 | 6 | 86 | 0 | 82.6 |
| 2013 Regular Season | Bowling Green | 14 | 48 | 822 | 3 | 82.6 |
Player insights
Supporting note
2013 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 92.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2013 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Buffalo
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 compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2013 Postseason · Bowling Green
Games
14
Receiving Yards / G
64.9
Efficiency
92.8
Usage
22.2
Consistency
63.5
Best Game by takeover score
Buffalo
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. Pittsburgh: 86. Tulsa: 40. Kent State: 113. Indiana: 104. Murray State: 53. Akron: 78. Massachusetts: 25. Mississippi State: 40. Toledo: 64. Miami (OH): 47. Ohio: 71. Eastern Michigan: 23. Buffalo: 149. Northern Illinois: 15
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. Pittsburgh: 6 by 95.6. Tulsa: 2 by 100. Kent State: 6 by 100. Indiana: 7 by 99. Murray State: 3 by 100. Akron: 5 by 100. Massachusetts: 2 by 83.3. Mississippi State: 4 by 66.7. Toledo: 3 by 100. Miami (OH): 4 by 78.3. Ohio: 3 by 100. Eastern Michigan: 2 by 76.7. Buffalo: 6 by 100. Northern Illinois: 1 by 100
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins61.4 · Games = 10 · -12.1 vs Losses
Losses73.5 · Games = 4 · +12.1 vs Wins
Next best actions
Keep exploring Shaun Joplin
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.