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

Eric Schurhamer Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1993-12-14 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 — USHL 37 1 8 9 0.243 0.1549 0.1516 0.7288 0.7131
■ 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 Maine D1 HockeyEast SR 36 3 9 12 0.333
2015-16 Maine D1 HockeyEast JR 28 2 8 10 0.357
2014-15 Maine D1 HockeyEast SO 35 2 9 11 0.314
2013-14 Maine D1 HockeyEast FR 27 3 7 10 0.370
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.14
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.37
2013-14 · Maine
+158.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#6762
Defenseman overall
#1039
Defenseman born in 1993
#3376
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Cliff Watson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Vince Pedrie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Penn State (0.69 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Eric Sweetman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.39 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Niklas Folin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.16 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average 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

Matt Stengl
St. Scholastica · 2004-05
0.826 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Patrick Jobb
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2007-08
0.556 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Anthony McIntyre
Manhattanville · 2005-06
1.000 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.