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

Jason Aldrich Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1985-03-23 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
2003-04 Springfield Spirit NAHL 42 9 9 18 0.429 0.1575 0.1604 0.4524 0.4609
2004-05 Central Texas Marshals NAHL 28 3 0 3 0.107 0.0393 0.0381 0.1130 0.1095
■ 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
2007-08 Finlandia D3 — SR 29 3 4 7 0.241
2006-07 Finlandia D3 — JR 27 6 9 15 0.556
2005-06 Finlandia D3 — SO 20 11 9 20 1.000
2004-05 Finlandia D3 — FR 10 2 1 3 0.300
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.14
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.30
2004-05 · Finlandia
+118.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#47657
Forward overall
#1478
Forward born in 1985
#5409
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Ben Ostlie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Notre Dame
0.13 No data
NCAAe PPG
William Messa
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Northeastern
0.12 No data
NCAAe PPG
Stanislav Dzakhov
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Niagara (0.44 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Average
NCAAe PPG
Tayler Munson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Average
NCAAe PPG
Matthew Hansen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.25 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Jacob Shankar
Concordia · 2018-19
0.200 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Steven Li
Stevenson · 2022-23
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Theo Hannah
Amherst · 2010-11
0.000 No data
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.