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

Jordan Trapp Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: ⚠ Missing — add in admin Country: USA
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
2013-14 Champlin Park High (Women) USHS-W 24 0 4 4 0.167 0.0501 0.0501 — —
2014-15 Champlin Park High (Women) USHS-W 24 6 10 16 0.667 0.2005 0.2005 — —
2015-16 Champlin Park High (Women) USHS-W 20 7 12 19 0.950 0.2857 0.2857 — —
2016-17 Champlin Park High (Women) USHS-W 25 17 20 37 1.480 0.4450 0.4450 — —
■ 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
2020-21 Lake Forest D3 NCHA — 4 0 2 2 0.500
2019-20 Lake Forest D3 NCHA — 28 4 8 12 0.429
2018-19 Lake Forest D3 NCHA — 28 6 9 15 0.536
2017-18 Lake Forest D3 NCHA — 29 8 7 15 0.517
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.33
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.52
2017-18 · Lake Forest
+58.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#1755
Forward overall
#593
in USHS-W

D1 Comparables

Dana Rasmussen
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 2.96 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.45 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Reagan Haley
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.92 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.44 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Haley Mack
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 2.88 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.37 D1 FR PPG)
0.43 Average
NCAAe PPG
Rebecca Lindblad
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 1.43 PPG
→ UConn (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.43 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Lauren Abbenante
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 1.54 PPG
→ Holy Cross (0.61 D1 FR PPG)
0.46 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Dana Rasmussen
Ohio State ·
0.167 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Reagan Haley
Minnesota Duluth ·
0.108 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Haley Mack
Bemidji State ·
0.371 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.