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

Cliff Watson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1993-12-21 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
2011-12 Sioux City Musketeers USHL 58 0 8 8 0.138 0.0878 0.0907 0.4132 0.4267
2012-13 Sioux City Musketeers USHL 62 3 8 11 0.177 0.1130 0.1107 0.5316 0.5206
■ 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
2016-17 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA SR 45 3 12 15 0.333
2015-16 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA JR 37 2 8 10 0.270
2014-15 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA SO 40 3 10 13 0.325
2013-14 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA FR 40 0 4 4 0.100
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.10
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.10
2013-14 · Michigan Tech
3.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#11938
Defenseman overall
#1487
Defenseman born in 1993
#3907
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Eric Schurhamer
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Maine (0.37 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Niklas Folin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.16 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Sam Piazza
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.16 PPG
→ Michigan (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Richard Buri
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.04 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.16 D1 FR PPG)
0.03 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Eric Sweetman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.39 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Patrick DeBlois
New England College · 2014-15
0.518 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Brett Bannister
Canton · 2017-18
0.458 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Franco Loparco
Concordia Wisconsin · 2010-11
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.