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

Sam Piazza Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1994-01-27 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 Sioux City Musketeers USHL 5 0 1 1 0.200 0.1274 0.1381 0.5993 0.6498
2011-12 Sioux City Musketeers USHL 13 1 0 1 0.077 0.0490 0.0508 0.2304 0.2391
2012-13 Chicago Steel USHL 25 1 3 4 0.160 0.1019 0.1003 0.4795 0.4720
2013-14 Wichita Falls Wildcats NAHL 58 11 26 37 0.638 0.2369 0.2305 0.6754 0.6571
■ 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
2017-18 Michigan D1 BigTen SR 38 2 13 15 0.395
2016-17 Michigan D1 BigTen JR 32 6 8 14 0.438
2015-16 Michigan D1 BigTen SO 16 1 5 6 0.375
2014-15 Michigan D1 BigTen FR 10 0 1 1 0.100
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.17
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.10
2014-15 · Michigan
-40.6% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#6047
Defenseman overall
#1016
Defenseman born in 1994

D1 Comparables

Geoff Fortman
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Canisius (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Max Everson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Harvard (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Taylor Fleming
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.48 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Taki Pantziris
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Brown
0.16 No data
NCAAe PPG
Victor Newell
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Harvard (0.67 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Elite D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Marc Biggs
Salve Regina · 2010-11
0.962 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Kyle Roulston
Hamilton · 2004-05
0.731 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Joseph Admirand
New England · 2014-15
0.500 Average
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.