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

Evan Janssen Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1993-03-31 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 Alaska Avalanche NAHL 59 23 25 48 0.814 0.3021 0.3118 0.8614 0.8890
2012-13 Dubuque Fighting Saints USHL 51 10 13 23 0.451 0.2872 0.2709 1.3515 1.2746
■ 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 Denver D1 NCHC SR 42 7 19 26 0.619
2015-16 Denver D1 NCHC JR 41 5 7 12 0.293
2014-15 Denver D1 NCHC SO 27 0 4 4 0.148
2013-14 Denver D1 NCHC FR 36 2 3 5 0.139
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.25
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.14
2013-14 · Denver
-43.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#10966
Forward overall
#396
Forward born in 1993

D1 Comparables

Kyle Bauman
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.70 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Average
NCAAe PPG
Stanislav Dzakhov
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.69 PPG
→ Niagara (0.44 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Average
NCAAe PPG
Gage Hough
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Eric Freschi
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.51 PPG
→ Cornell (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Devin Loe
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.85 PPG
→ Miami (0.71 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Connor Inger
New England College · 2016-17
0.692 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Tyler Resch
Manhattanville · 2000-01
1.154 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Jason Murfitt
Manhattanville · 2002-03
0.875 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.