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

Tommy Davis Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1993-09-04 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 Youngstown Phantoms USHL 61 7 14 21 0.344 0.2193 0.2115 1.0318 0.9952
■ 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
2017-18 Providence D1 HockeyEast SR 40 1 10 11 0.275
2016-17 Princeton D1 ECAC SR 33 3 6 9 0.273
2015-16 Princeton D1 ECAC JR 30 1 4 5 0.167
2014-15 Princeton D1 ECAC SO 27 2 3 5 0.185
2013-14 Princeton D1 ECAC FR 7 0 2 2 0.286
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.20
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.29
2013-14 · Princeton
+43.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#3362
Defenseman overall
#676
Defenseman born in 1993
#2582
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Christian Neumann
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ UConn (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Mike McKee
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Neal Goff
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Nate Repensky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ Yale (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Tucker Poolman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.44 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.45 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Owen Bourdow
UMass Boston · 2018-19
0.667 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Mitch Stephens
SUNY Geneseo · 2001-02
1.077 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Michael Soik
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2005-06
1.346 Elite
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.