Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason
Memphis paired 797 primary output with 74.7 efficiency.
Player Stats
Mose Frazier 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
- 1,599
- Receptions
- 135
- Touchdowns
- 10
Season Ledger
Crawlable season-by-season stats
| Season | Team | Games | Rec | Rec Yds | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 Regular Season | Memphis | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - |
| 2013 Regular Season | Memphis | 8 | 18 | 296 | 1 | 58.9 |
| 2014 Postseason | Memphis | 13 | 4 | 31 | 0 | 59.7 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Memphis | 13 | 43 | 475 | 3 | 59.7 |
| 2015 Postseason | Memphis | 13 | 4 | 47 | 0 | 80.1 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Memphis | 13 | 66 | 750 | 6 | 80.1 |
Player insights
Supporting note
2015 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 74.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2015 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Tulsa
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.
2015 Postseason · Memphis
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
61.3
Efficiency
74.7
Usage
22.3
Consistency
71.3
Best Game by takeover score
Tulsa
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. Auburn: 47. Missouri State: 89. Kansas: 77. Bowling Green: 66. Cincinnati: 16. South Florida: 31. Ole Miss: 83. Tulsa: 128. Tulane: 75. Navy: 61. Houston: 33. Temple: 35. SMU: 56
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. Auburn: 4 by 78.3. Missouri State: 6 by 98.9. Kansas: 4 by 100. Bowling Green: 7 by 62.9. Cincinnati: 2 by 53.3. South Florida: 2 by 100. Ole Miss: 8 by 69.2. Tulsa: 10 by 85.3. Tulane: 7 by 71.4. Navy: 6 by 67.8. Houston: 4 by 55. Temple: 8 by 29.2. SMU: 2 by 100
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins69 · Games = 9 · +25 vs Losses
Losses44 · Games = 4 · -25 vs Wins
Next best actions
Keep exploring Mose Frazier
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.