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

Matt Nieto Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1992-11-05 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 — NTDP-U18 26 15 17 32 1.231 0.9544 1.0027 4.5809 4.8130
2009-10 — NTDP-U18 57 29 26 55 0.965 0.7482 0.7461 3.5913 3.5812
■ 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 Boston University D1 HockeyEast — 39 18 19 37 0.949
2011-12 Boston University D1 HockeyEast — 37 16 26 42 1.135
2010-11 Boston University D1 HockeyEast — 39 10 13 23 0.590
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.84
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.59
2010-11 · Boston University
-30.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#2356
Forward overall
#131
Forward born in 1992

D1 Comparables

Austin Poganski
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.00 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.37 D1 FR PPG)
0.67 Average
NCAAe PPG
Seamus Malone
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 1.00 PPG
→ Wisconsin (0.74 D1 FR PPG)
0.80 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Trevor Stone
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.00 PPG
→ Air Force (0.46 D1 FR PPG)
0.68 Average
NCAAe PPG
J.T. Compher
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.14 PPG
→ Michigan (0.89 D1 FR PPG)
0.73 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Trevor Moore
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.02 PPG
→ Denver (0.76 D1 FR PPG)
0.65 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

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