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

Matt Roy Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1995-03-01 Country: USA
2015 · Round 7, Pick #194  ·  Los Angeles Kings Los Angeles Kings
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 10 1 2 3 0.300 0.1770 0.1839 0.9010 0.9361
2013-14 — USHL 24 4 5 9 0.375 0.2212 0.2195 1.1263 1.1175
■ 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 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA JR 42 5 21 26 0.619
2015-16 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA SO 37 7 13 20 0.540
2014-15 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA FR 36 0 9 9 0.250
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.19
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.25
2014-15 · Michigan Tech
+29.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#6220
Defenseman overall
#1028
Defenseman born in 1995
#2562
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Clay Anderson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Harvard (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Justin Woods
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Garret Cockerill
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Nolan Gluchowski
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.40 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.55 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Johnny Wingels
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Miami
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Matthew Hale
Plymouth State · 2021-22
0.571 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Nathan Cook
Babson · 2001-02
1.115 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Jack Campion
Saint Mary's (MN) · 2019-20
0.480 Average
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.