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

Aaron Palushaj Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1989-09-07 Country: USA
2007 · Round 2, Pick #44  ·  St. Louis Blues St. Louis Blues
Signed Professionally
Örebro HK · SHL

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
2005-06 Des Moines Buccaneers USHL 58 10 23 33 0.569 0.3357 0.3782 1.7089 1.9255
2006-07 Des Moines Buccaneers USHL 56 22 45 67 1.196 0.7058 0.7590 3.5933 3.8641
2014-15 — KHL 53 7 14 21 0.396 0.9905 1.0963 5.4591 6.0419
2016-17 Dinamo Minsk KHL 18 8 4 12 0.667 1.6667 1.6627 9.1863 9.1642
2017-18 Brynäs IF SHL 51 19 26 45 0.882 2.2060 1.9711 11.5141 10.2878
2018-19 Örebro HK SHL 31 12 16 28 0.903 2.2580 1.9054 11.7855 9.9450
■ 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
2008-09 Michigan D1 BigTen SO 39 13 37 50 1.282
2007-08 Michigan D1 BigTen FR 43 10 34 44 1.023
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.56
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.02
2007-08 · Michigan
+81.2% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 16 comparables)

🏒 NHL / Pro Track — production profile is consistent with players who bypassed or minimized college hockey
0%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
100%
NHL / Pro

NCAAe Rankings

#75
Forward overall
#6
Forward born in 1989

D2/3 Comparables

Neil Trimm
Neumann · 2003-04
1.800 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Arkhip Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Brandon Osmundson
Utica · 2018-19
1.448 Elite
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.