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

Taylor Peracchio Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1998-06-13 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
2014-15 Shattuck St. Mary's Prep USHS-W 53 2 8 10 0.189 0.0567 0.0555 — —
2015-16 Shattuck St. Mary's Prep USHS-W 61 4 13 17 0.279 0.0838 0.0775 — —
■ 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
2017-18 Trinity D3 NESCAC FR 24 5 5 10 0.417
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.06
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.42
2017-18 · Trinity
+542.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#4031
Defenseman overall
#348
Defenseman born in 1998
#3396
in USHS-W

D1 Comparables

Tristen Truax
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.07 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Kelsey Crow
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.48 PPG
→ Penn State (0.16 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Jessica Adolfsson
SDHL · 2012-13 · 0.06 PPG
→ Penn State (0.34 D1 FR PPG)
0.07 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Jordan Jackson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.44 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.13 D1 FR PPG)
0.07 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Emma Turbyville
USHS-W · 2012-13 · 0.28 PPG
→ St. Cloud State (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Jayne Gamburg
SUNY Potsdam · 2024-25
0.182 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Julie Barlow
Concordia Wisconsin · 2024-25
0.231 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Amanda Smythe
Wisconsin-River Falls · 2023-24
0.105 Developing
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.