Usage Score
27.3
Player Dossier
2010-2014Michigan State
WR • 6'3" • Detroit, MI, USA
Tony Lippett reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Usage Score
27.3
Efficiency
94.3
Consistency
67.8
Season Value
72.3
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason · Michigan State
Snapshot
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.
Tony Lippett, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason · Michigan State. Tony Lippett reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Tony Lippett played WR for Michigan State. Across 5 tracked seasons, Tony Lippett recorded 5 passing yards, 51 rushing yards, and 2,247 receiving yards. His top tracked season came in 2014 with Michigan State.
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason
Michigan State paired 1,198 primary output with 94.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
2014 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 94.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2014 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Unknown
Game with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
92.2
Efficiency
94.3
Usage
27.3
Consistency
67.8
Best Game by takeover score
Baylor
Active game
Hover over a point
Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.
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. Baylor: 74. Unknown: 167. Oregon: 133. Eastern Michigan: 45. Wyoming: 76. Nebraska: 104. Purdue: 138. Indiana: 123. Michigan: 103. Ohio State: 64. Maryland: 46. Rutgers: 72. Penn State: 53
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. Baylor: 5 by 98.7. Unknown: 4 by 100. Oregon: 11 by 80.6. Eastern Michigan: 3 by 100. Wyoming: 4 by 100. Nebraska: 3 by 100. Purdue: 7 by 100. Indiana: 7 by 100. Michigan: 3 by 100. Ohio State: 5 by 85.3. Maryland: 4 by 76.7. Rutgers: 5 by 96. Penn State: 4 by 88.3
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Unknown
Best efficiency game
100 vs Michigan
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 1/1 | @ Baylor | W 42-41 | — | 5 | 74 | 15.5 | 14.80 | 0 | 24 |
| Sat 11/29 | @ Penn State | W 34-10 | — | 4 | 53 | 13.3 | 13.30 | 1 | 15 |
| Sat 11/22 | vs Rutgers | W 45-3 | — | 5 | 72 | 14.4 | 14.40 | 1 | 30 |
| Sun 11/16 | @ Maryland | W 37-15 | — | 4 | 46 | 11.5 | 11.50 | 0 | 20 |
| Sun 11/9 | vs Ohio State | L 37-49 | — | 5 | 64 | 12.8 | 12.80 | 0 | 17 |
| Sat 10/25 | vs Michigan100 receiving yards | W 35-11 | — | 3 | 103 | 34.3 | 34.30 | 1 | 70 |
| Sat 10/18 | @ Indiana100 receiving yards | W 56-17 | — | 7 | 123 | 17.6 | 17.60 | 0 | 41 |
| Sat 10/11 | @ Purdue100 receiving yards | W 45-31 | — | 7 | 138 | 19.7 | 19.70 | 1 | 39 |
| Sun 10/5 | vs Nebraska100 receiving yards | W 27-22 | — | 3 | 104 | 34 | 34.70 | 1 | 55 |
| Sat 9/27 | vs Wyoming | W 56-14 | — | 4 | 76 | 19 | 19 | 1 | 25 |
| Sat 9/20 | vs Eastern Michigan2+ TD | W 73-14 | — | 3 | 45 | 15 | 15 | 2 | 23 |
| Sat 9/6 | @ Oregon100 receiving yards · High volume | L 27-46 | — | 11 | 133 | 12.1 | 12.10 | 1 | 34 |
| Fri 8/29 | vs Unknown100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | — | — | 4 | 167 | 41.8 | 41.80 | 2 | 71 |
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
Michigan State
2010-2014
Opening stop
Season Progression
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 Regular Season | Michigan State | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2011 Regular Season | Michigan State | 44 | 82.2 | 10.2 | 44 |
| 2012 Postseason | Michigan State | 392 | 67 | 15.3 | 348 |
| 2012 Regular Season | Michigan State | 392 | 67 | 15.3 | 0 |
| 2013 Postseason | Michigan State | 613 | 82.5 | 23.2 | 221 |
| 2013 Regular Season | Michigan State | 613 | 82.5 | 23.2 | 0 |
| 2014 Postseason | Michigan State | 1,198 | 94.3 | 27.3 | 585 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Michigan State | 1,198 | 94.3 | 27.3 | 0 |
#1 Featured game
Stanford
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
94
Primary metric
94 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Unknown
167
Primary metric
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
167 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Purdue
138
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
138 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Minnesota
71
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
71 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Boise State
62
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
62 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#1 Season by value score
2014 Postseason · Michigan State
1,198 primary output · 94.3 efficiency · 27.3 usage
72.3
#2
2014 Regular Season · Michigan State
72.3
1,198 primary · 94.3 efficiency · 27.3 usage
#3
2013 Postseason · Michigan State
58.2
613 primary · 82.5 efficiency · 23.2 usage
6
100+ receiving yards
1
8+ catch outings
2
2+ TD games
Recruit Profile
Class 2010 · Rating 0.86
Crockett · Detroit, MI
Career Facts
1
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
2,247
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 8 tracked seasons, 40 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.