Usage Score
22.7
Player Dossier
2011-2015UCLA
Devin Lucien
WR • 6'1" • Encino, CA, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Devin Lucien reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
87.8
Consistency
54.6
Season Value
66.3
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Arizona State
1112131314141515
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 2
- Seasons Tracked
- 8
- Program Path
- UCLA • Arizona State
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Arizona
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.
Devin Lucien, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Arizona State. Devin Lucien reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason
Arizona State paired 1,074 primary output with 87.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
2015 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 87.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2015 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Multi-stop career journey
Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across UCLA, Arizona State.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Arizona
Win with an explosive receiving profile. 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.
2015 Postseason · Arizona State
Games
12
Receiving Yards / G
89.5
Efficiency
87.8
Usage
22.7
Consistency
54.6
Best Game by takeover score
West Virginia
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. West Virginia: 144. Texas A&M: 25. Unknown: 79. New Mexico: 43. UCLA: 34. Colorado: 39. Utah: 118. Oregon: 77. Washington State: 62. Washington: 63. Arizona: 190. California: 200
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. West Virginia: 9 by 100. Texas A&M: 2 by 83.3. Unknown: 7 by 75.2. New Mexico: 4 by 71.7. UCLA: 3 by 75.6. Colorado: 4 by 65. Utah: 6 by 100. Oregon: 5 by 100. Washington State: 5 by 82.7. Washington: 4 by 100. Arizona: 9 by 100. California: 8 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins73.8 · n=5 · -30.5 vs Losses
Losses104.3 · n=6 · +30.5 vs Wins
First Half60.7 · n=6 · -57.7 vs Second Half
Second Half118.3 · n=6 · +57.7 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
12 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Arizona
Best efficiency game
100 vs West Virginia
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun 1/3 | vs West Virginia100 receiving yards · High volume | L 42-43 | — | 9 | 144 | 16 | 16 | 1 | 29 |
| Sun 11/29 | @ California100 receiving yards · High volume | L 46-48 | — | 8 | 200 | 25 | 25 | 3 | 51 |
| Sat 11/21 | vs Arizona100 receiving yards · High volume | W 52-37 | — | 9 | 190 | 21.1 | 21.10 | 1 | 59 |
| Sat 11/14 | vs Washington | W 27-17 | — | 4 | 63 | 15.8 | 15.80 | 1 | 32 |
| Sat 11/7 | @ Washington State | L 24-38 | — | 5 | 62 | 12.4 | 12.40 | 0 | 21 |
| Fri 10/30 | vs Oregon | L 55-61 | — | 5 | 77 | 15.4 | 15.40 | 1 | 30 |
| Sun 10/18 | @ Utah100 receiving yards | L 18-34 | — | 6 | 118 | 19.7 | 19.70 | 0 | 42 |
| Sun 10/11 | vs Colorado | W 48-23 | — | 4 | 39 | 9.8 | 9.80 | 1 | 21 |
| Sat 10/3 | @ UCLA | W 38-23 | — | 3 | 34 | 11.3 | 11.30 | 0 | 23 |
| Sat 9/19 | vs New Mexico | W 34-10 | — | 4 | 43 | 10.8 | 10.80 | 0 | 17 |
| Sun 9/13 | vs Unknown | — | — | 7 | 79 | 11.3 | 11.30 | 0 | 20 |
| Sat 9/5 | @ Texas A&M | L 17-38 | — | 2 | 25 | 12.5 | 12.50 | 0 | 21 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
UCLA
2011-2014
Opening stop
- 2
Arizona State
2015
Final stop
Season Progression
20112012201320132014201420152015
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 Regular Season | UCLA | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2012 Regular Season | UCLA | 188 | 86 | 8.2 | 188 |
| 2013 Postseason | UCLA | 339 | 94.6 | 9.6 | 151 |
| 2013 Regular Season | UCLA | 339 | 94.6 | 9.6 | 0 |
| 2014 Postseason | UCLA | 225 | 52 | 11.1 | -114 |
| 2014 Regular Season | UCLA | 225 | 52 | 11.1 | 0 |
| 2015 Postseason | Arizona State | 1,074 | 87.8 | 22.7 | 849 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Arizona State | 1,074 | 87.8 | 22.7 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Arizona
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
190
Primary metric
190 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
California
200
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
200 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Washington
54
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
54 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Nebraska
70
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
70 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
California
37
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
37 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2015 Postseason · Arizona State
1,074 primary output · 87.8 efficiency · 22.7 usage
66.3
#2
2015 Regular Season · Arizona State
66.3
1,074 primary · 87.8 efficiency · 22.7 usage
#3
2013 Postseason · UCLA
55.4
339 primary · 94.6 efficiency · 9.6 usage
Milestones
4
100+ receiving yards
3
8+ catch outings
1
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2011 · Rating 0.8952
Crespi · Encino, CA
- Committed To
- UCLA
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2011
Career Facts
2
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
1,826
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 8 tracked seasons, 39 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.