Player Stats

Troy Fumagalli 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
1,627
Receptions
135
Touchdowns
7

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesRecRec YdsTDOverall
2013 Regular SeasonWisconsin0-00-
2014 PostseasonWisconsin12218053.5
2014 Regular SeasonWisconsin1212169053.5
2015 PostseasonWisconsin9236060.8
2015 Regular SeasonWisconsin926277160.8
2016 PostseasonWisconsin13683180.7
2016 Regular SeasonWisconsin1341497180.7
2017 PostseasonWisconsin12331077.3
2017 Regular SeasonWisconsin1243516477.3

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2016 Postseason

Wisconsin paired 580 primary output with 76 efficiency.

Supporting note

2017 Postseason role shape

target-driven usage with 72.1 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2017 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Utah State

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.

2017 Postseason · Wisconsin

Games

12

Receiving Yards / G

45.6

Efficiency

72.1

Usage

26.7

Consistency

53.8

Best Game by takeover score

Utah 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.

123456789101112

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Miami: 31. Utah State: 105. Florida Atlantic: 92. BYU: 39. Nebraska: 31. Maryland: 83. Illinois: 31. Indiana: 20. Iowa: 21. Michigan: 38. Minnesota: 11. Ohio State: 45

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. Miami: 3 by 68.9. Utah State: 5 by 100. Florida Atlantic: 8 by 76.7. BYU: 2 by 100. Nebraska: 3 by 68.9. Maryland: 7 by 79. Illinois: 2 by 100. Indiana: 3 by 44.4. Iowa: 3 by 46.7. Michigan: 3 by 84.4. Minnesota: 2 by 36.7. Ohio State: 5 by 60

Split Comparison

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

Wins45.6 · Games = 11 · +0.6 vs Losses
Losses45 · Games = 1 · -0.6 vs Wins