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

Matt Van Voorhis Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1993-01-19 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
2009-10 U.S. National U17 Team NTDP-U18 43 3 6 9 0.209 0.1623 0.1635 0.7790 0.7848
2010-11 — NTDP-U18 61 0 5 5 0.082 0.0636 0.0614 0.3052 0.2945
2011-12 Sioux Falls Stampede USHL 55 8 8 16 0.291 0.1788 0.1764 0.8570 0.8455
2012-13 Sioux Falls Stampede USHL 53 6 19 25 0.472 0.2900 0.2707 1.3897 1.2971
■ 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
2016-17 Denver D1 NCHC — 44 1 3 4 0.091
2015-16 Denver D1 NCHC — 34 3 5 8 0.235
2014-15 Denver D1 NCHC — 22 0 7 7 0.318
2013-14 Denver D1 NCHC — 39 0 4 4 0.103
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.22
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.10
2013-14 · Denver
-53.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#6571
Defenseman overall
#957
Defenseman born in 1993

D1 Comparables

Taylor Fleming
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.48 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Barrett Kaib
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Providence (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.33 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Victor Newell
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Harvard (0.67 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Max Everson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Harvard (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Taki Pantziris
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Brown
0.15 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Dylan Nowakowski
St. Scholastica · 2011-12
0.889 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Jason Murfitt
Manhattanville · 2002-03
0.875 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Jack Billings
Salve Regina · 2015-16
1.381 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.