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

Mike Carman Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1988-04-14 Country: USA
2006 · Round 3, Pick #81  ·  Colorado Avalanche Colorado Avalanche
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
2004-05 U.S. National U17 Team NTDP-U18 63 16 28 44 0.698 0.5191 0.5293 2.6060 2.6574
2005-06 U.S. National U18 Team NTDP-U18 60 21 33 54 0.900 0.6690 0.6495 3.3583 3.2606
■ 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
2009-10 Minnesota D1 BigTen SR 39 8 10 18 0.462
2008-09 Minnesota D1 BigTen JR 32 8 9 17 0.531
2007-08 Minnesota D1 BigTen SO 23 4 7 11 0.478
2006-07 Minnesota D1 BigTen FR 41 9 11 20 0.488
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.56
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.49
2006-07 · Minnesota
-12.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#4585
Forward overall
#209
Forward born in 1988
#8
in NTDP-U18

D1 Comparables

Trevor Moore
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.02 PPG
→ Denver (0.76 D1 FR PPG)
0.63 Strong
NCAAe PPG
J.T. Compher
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.96 PPG
→ Michigan (0.89 D1 FR PPG)
0.69 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Sean Malone
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.87 PPG
→ Harvard (0.65 D1 FR PPG)
0.54 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Anthony Louis
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.04 PPG
→ Miami (0.69 D1 FR PPG)
0.64 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Gabe Guertler
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.85 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.53 Developing
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.