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

Clay Anderson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1994-03-07 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 Amarillo Wranglers NAHL 2 0 2 2 1.000 0.3713 0.4005 1.0588 1.1421
2012-13 Cedar Rapids RoughRiders USHL 60 4 19 23 0.383 0.2441 0.2416 1.1486 1.1368
■ 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 Harvard D1 ECAC SR 36 3 12 15 0.417
2015-16 Harvard D1 ECAC JR 34 3 12 15 0.441
2014-15 Harvard D1 ECAC SO 37 1 9 10 0.270
2013-14 Harvard D1 ECAC FR 19 0 4 4 0.210
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.29
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.21
2013-14 · Harvard
-26.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#2580
Defenseman overall
#629
Defenseman born in 1994

D1 Comparables

Justin Woods
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Alaska (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Nolan Gluchowski
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.40 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.55 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Garret Cockerill
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Johnny Wingels
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Miami
0.18 No data
NCAAe PPG
Jeff Taylor
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Union (0.39 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Arturas Laukaitis
Wisconsin-Stout · 2015-16
0.667 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Ikki Kogawa
Wisconsin-Superior · 2021-22
1.056 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
James Duhamel
Norwich · 2003-04
0.692 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.