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

Nathan Davis Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1986-05-23 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 USNTDP Juniors NAHL 11 3 6 9 0.818 0.3242 0.3492 0.8590 0.9251
■ 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 Miami D1 — SR 21 8 9 17 0.809
2006-07 Miami D1 — JR 42 21 29 50 1.190
2005-06 Miami D1 — SO 37 20 20 40 1.081
2004-05 Miami D1 — FR 38 14 11 25 0.658
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.30
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.66
2004-05 · Miami
+120.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#13553
Forward overall
#461
Forward born in 1986
#563
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Frederik Tiffels
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.66 D1 FR PPG)
0.32 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Mike Marnell
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.49 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.32 Average
NCAAe PPG
Avery Peterson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Nebraska Omaha (0.54 D1 FR PPG)
0.32 Average
NCAAe PPG
Luke Stork
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.33 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Matthew Weis
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.71 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.67 D1 FR PPG)
0.46 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Mike Fiume
Neumann · 2000-01
1.040 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Tom Bark
Lake Forest · 2007-08
1.120 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Travis Janke
Norwich · 2007-08
1.258 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.