Player Stats

Marcus Ball 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

Tackles
64
TFL
3
Sacks
1
Passes defended
2

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2013 Regular SeasonArizona State00-0--0-
2014 Regular SeasonArizona State00-0--0-
2015 Regular SeasonArizona State10-0--044.8
2016 Regular SeasonArizona State116431-2049.1
2017 Regular SeasonArizona State00-0--0-

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2016 Regular Season

Arizona State paired 7 primary output with 29.8 efficiency.

Supporting note

2016 Regular Season role shape

impact-led usage with 29.8 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value cooled off

2017 Regular Season fell back from the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Washington State

Loss with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet. 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.

2016 Regular Season · Arizona State

Games

11

Havoc Plays / G

0.6

Efficiency

29.8

Usage

6.2

Consistency

15.2

Best Game by takeover score

Washington State

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.

1234567891011

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Northern Arizona: 2. Texas Tech: 0. UTSA: 1. California: 0. USC: 1. UCLA: 1. Colorado: 0. Washington State: 2. Oregon: 0. Utah: 0. Arizona: 0

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. Northern Arizona: 3 by 32.5. Texas Tech: 2 by 8.3. UTSA: 7 by 39.2. California: 2 by 8.3. USC: 2 by 18.3. UCLA: 10 by 51.7. Colorado: 10 by 41.7. Washington State: 9 by 57.5. Oregon: 14 by 50. Utah: 3 by 12.5. Arizona: 2 by 8.3

Split Comparison

Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.

Wins0.8 · Games = 5 · +0.3 vs Losses
Losses0.5 · Games = 6 · -0.3 vs Wins