IcePath icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
← New Search ↗ Social Card

Noah de la Durantaye

Position: Defense DOB: ⚠ Missing — add in admin Country: ?
No commitment set

Set Commitment

NCAA Division I

NCAA D3 / D2

Career Trajectory
Dashed = raw PPG  ·  ■ Solid blue = age-adjusted NCAAe-PPG  ·  ■ Green = actual college PPG
Junior Seasons
Season Team League GP G A Pts PPG NCAAe-PPG Age-Adj D3e-PPG Age-Adj
2018-19 Deerfield Academy NE-Prep 27 7 9 16 0.593 0.1174 0.1174 0.2700 0.2700
■ Blue = NCAAe (D1 anchor)   ■ Green = D3e (D3 anchor)   COVID-flagged seasons highlighted in yellow
College Seasons (Historical)
Season School Div Conference Year GP G A Pts PPG
2024-25 Princeton D1 ECAC SR 29 4 6 10 0.345
2023-24 Princeton D1 ECAC JR 29 3 15 18 0.621
2022-23 Princeton D1 ECAC SO 31 4 13 17 0.548
2021-22 Princeton D1 ECAC FR 28 3 7 10 0.357
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.11
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.36
2021-22 · Princeton
+222.3% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

0%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
92%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#8973
Defenseman overall
#485
in NE-Prep

D1 Comparables

Kyle Mackey
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.16 PPG
→ Air Force (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Zach Yoder
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.10 PPG
→ Air Force (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.06 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Ruslan Pedan
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.34 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Jake Bischoff
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Cutler Martin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Michigan (0.47 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Aidan Girduckis
Chatham · 2016-17
0.583 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Jason Fleck
Augsburg · 2001-02
0.583 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Jordan Baird
St. Scholastica · 2003-04
0.429 Average
actual D2/3 PPG

How to read this: NCAAe and D3e factors convert a player's junior PPG into expected NCAA scoring at the D1 or D3 level. Harder conferences → lower projected PPG for the same player. A strong junior player (e.g. USHL 0.90 PPG) will project much higher in NESCAC than Big Ten because the D3 scoring environment is lower-difficulty.

Strength factor: conferences above 1.0 are harder than average; below 1.0 are easier. The formula is: Base NCAAe PPG ÷ Conference Strength = Projected PPG.