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

Mark Auk Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1995-02-18 Country: USA
Signed Professionally
Lukko · Liiga

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 Cedar Rapids RoughRiders USHL 34 1 9 10 0.294 0.1873 0.1943 0.8813 0.9143
2013-14 Cedar Rapids RoughRiders USHL 59 10 19 29 0.491 0.3130 0.3101 1.4729 1.4591
2018-19 Lukko Liiga 47 1 9 10 0.213 — — — —
■ 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 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA SR 44 9 22 31 0.705
2016-17 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA JR 44 5 18 23 0.523
2015-16 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA SO 36 4 13 17 0.472
2014-15 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA FR 26 3 10 13 0.500
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.25
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.50
2014-15 · Michigan Tech
+100.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#2705
Defenseman overall
#576
Defenseman born in 1995

D1 Comparables

Clay Anderson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Harvard (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 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
Matias Cleland
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.62 PPG
→ New Hampshire (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.39 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Jeff Taylor
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Union (0.39 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Dakota Mermis
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Denver (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Myles Abbate
Plymouth State · 2018-19
1.037 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Neil Trimm
Neumann · 2001-02
1.800 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Michel Bond
SUNY Geneseo · 2000-01
1.083 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.