Player Stats

Braxton Hoyett 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
58
TFL
7
Sacks
1.5
QB hurries
5

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2014 Regular SeasonMississippi State00-0--0-
2015 Regular SeasonMississippi State00-0--0-
2016 PostseasonMississippi State9310--015.6
2016 Regular SeasonMississippi State91210--015.6
2017 PostseasonMississippi State111-0--040.6
2017 Regular SeasonMississippi State11202.50.54-040.6
2018 PostseasonMississippi State104-0--027.9
2018 Regular SeasonMississippi State10182.511-027.9

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2017 Postseason

Mississippi State paired 8 primary output with 15.2 efficiency.

Supporting note

2018 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 13.7 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2018 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Kentucky

Loss with 2.5 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.

2018 Postseason · Mississippi State

Games

10

Havoc Plays / G

0.5

Efficiency

13.7

Usage

3.8

Consistency

10

Best Game by takeover score

Kentucky

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.

12345678910

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Iowa: 0. Stephen F. Austin: 0. Kansas State: 0. Louisiana: 1. Kentucky: 2.5. Florida: 1. LSU: 0. Louisiana Tech: 0. Alabama: 0. Ole Miss: 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. Iowa: 4 by 16.7. Stephen F. Austin: 2 by 8.3. Kansas State: 1 by 4.2. Louisiana: 4 by 26.7. Kentucky: 3 by 37.5. Florida: 3 by 22.5. LSU: 2 by 8.3. Louisiana Tech: 1 by 4.2. Alabama: 1 by 4.2. Ole Miss: 1 by 4.2

Split Comparison

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

Wins0.2 · Games = 5 · -0.5 vs Losses
Losses0.7 · Games = 5 · +0.5 vs Wins