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

Max Everson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1993-02-22 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
2010-11 U.S. National U18 Team NTDP-U18 17 1 2 3 0.176 0.1404 0.1361 0.6610 0.6408
2012-13 Omaha Lancers USHL 16 1 4 5 0.312 0.1990 0.1867 0.9365 0.8784
■ 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
2014-15 Harvard D1 ECAC SR 37 2 4 6 0.162
2013-14 Harvard D1 ECAC JR 23 0 6 6 0.261
2012-13 Harvard D1 ECAC SO 7 0 1 1 0.143
2011-12 Harvard D1 ECAC FR 34 0 4 4 0.118
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.13
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.12
2011-12 · Harvard
-8.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#5411
Defenseman overall
#904
Defenseman born in 1993

D1 Comparables

Geoff Fortman
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Canisius (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Nick Hinz
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Alaska
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG
Vinny Muto
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Niagara (0.51 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Joseph Fiala
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Johnny Hrabovsky
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Air Force (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Patrick Jobb
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2008-09
0.556 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Adam Kudynski
Lebanon Valley · 2003-04
0.909 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Arlen Marshall
Manhattanville · 2004-05
0.840 Strong
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.