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

Brady Riesgraf Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1992-10-16 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 Coulee Region Chill NAHL 20 1 2 3 0.150 0.0557 0.0562 — —
2012-13 Coulee Region Chill NAHL 58 1 16 17 0.293 0.1088 0.1043 0.3103 0.2976
■ 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
2013-14 Saint John's D3 — FR 17 3 4 7 0.412
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.08
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.41
2013-14 · Saint John's
+412.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#14225
Defenseman overall
#1694
Defenseman born in 1992
#5387
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.19 No data
NCAAe PPG
Dylan Zink
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.62 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Garret Peterson
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.35 PPG
→ Army (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Jake Flynn
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ UConn (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Robb Haider
Wisconsin-Stout · 2009-10
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Chris Nathe
Wisconsin-River Falls · 2002-03
0.471 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Chad Bennett
Fredonia · 2011-12
0.353 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.