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

Jeff Taylor Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1994-04-13 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
2012-13 Dubuque Fighting Saints USHL 57 5 22 27 0.474 0.3017 0.3001 1.4195 1.4121
■ 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 Union D1 ECAC SR 38 9 24 33 0.868
2015-16 Union D1 ECAC JR 36 2 10 12 0.333
2014-15 Union D1 ECAC SO 34 4 27 31 0.912
2013-14 Union D1 ECAC FR 41 3 13 16 0.390
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.28
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.39
2013-14 · Union
+37.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#1377
Defenseman overall
#419
Defenseman born in 1994
#1641
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Gavin Bayreuther
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.55 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.95 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Benning
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.39 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Ian Brady
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.53 PPG
→ Nebraska Omaha (0.64 D1 FR PPG)
0.34 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Clay Anderson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Harvard (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Dan Renouf
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.49 PPG
→ Maine (0.32 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Nicholas Stevens
Wisconsin-Stout · 2020-21
0.826 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Ryan Bloom
New England · 2011-12
1.654 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Chris Peters
UMass Boston · 2015-16
0.720 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.