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

Matt Mendelson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1995-05-14 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 Muskegon Lumberjacks USHL 17 2 1 3 0.176 0.1124 0.1179 0.5289 0.5548
2013-14 Muskegon Lumberjacks USHL 51 14 15 29 0.569 0.3621 0.3629 1.7039 1.7077
2014-15 Central Illinois Flying Aces USHL 51 14 23 37 0.726 0.4620 0.4403 2.1741 2.0722
■ 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 Penn State D1 BigTen SO 1 0 0 0 0.000
2015-16 Penn State D1 BigTen FR 27 1 2 3 0.111
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.35
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.11
2015-16 · Penn State
-68.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#7443
Forward overall
#260
Forward born in 1995
#1199
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Tyler Heinonen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.74 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.45 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Robbie Payne
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.12 PPG
→ Northern Michigan (0.29 D1 FR PPG)
0.41 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Phil Marinaccio
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.77 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.47 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Biggs
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.88 PPG
→ Miami (0.46 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Average
NCAAe PPG
Jay Dickman
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.00 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.37 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Justin Fox
Salem State · 2006-07
1.429 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Neil Trimm
Neumann · 2002-03
1.800 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Tyler Barrow
Wilkes · 2017-18
1.385 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.