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

Sam Weinstein

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
2007-08 Deerfield NE-Prep-Girls 22 2 2 4 0.180 0.1117 0.1117 — —
2008-09 Deerfield NE-Prep-Girls 23 6 4 10 0.430 0.2668 0.2668 — —
■ 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 Williams D3 NESCAC SR 25 6 8 14 0.560
2011-12 Williams D3 NESCAC JR 23 9 6 15 0.652
2010-11 Williams D3 NESCAC SO 22 8 7 15 0.682
2009-10 Williams D3 NESCAC FR 25 6 9 15 0.600
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.19
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.60
2009-10 · Williams
+210.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#1627
Defenseman overall
#362
in NE-Prep-Girls

D1 Comparables

Anna Kilponen
SMLIIGA-W · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Dani Sadek
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.46 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.61 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Christa Vuglar
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 1.00 PPG
→ RIT (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Grace Bizal
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.16 PPG
→ Boston College (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Arianna Kosakowski
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Union
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Anna Kilponen
North Dakota ·
0.257 Average D
actual D2/3 PPG
Dani Sadek
Ohio State ·
0.611 Strong D
actual D2/3 PPG
Christa Vuglar
RIT ·
0.205 Average D
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.