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

Matt Lindblad Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1990-03-23 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
2008-09 Chicago Steel USHL 51 5 20 25 0.490 0.3013 0.3032 1.4442 1.4534
2009-10 Sioux Falls Stampede USHL 57 24 45 69 1.210 0.7441 0.7012 3.5664 3.3608
■ 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
2012-13 Dartmouth D1 ECAC JR 30 10 18 28 0.933
2011-12 Dartmouth D1 ECAC SO 26 6 18 24 0.923
2010-11 Dartmouth D1 ECAC FR 33 13 15 28 0.849
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.50
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.85
2010-11 · Dartmouth
+68.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#4366
Forward overall
#206
Forward born in 1990
#193
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Luc Gerdes
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.00 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.58 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Sam Anas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.98 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (1.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.58 Elite
NCAAe PPG
J.T. Stenglein
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.04 PPG
→ Michigan (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.61 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Kyle Novak
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.20 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.68 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Frank DiChiara
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.94 PPG
→ Yale (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.56 Average
NCAAe PPG

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
Filimon Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 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.