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

Adam Johnson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1994-06-22 Country: USA
Signed Professionally
Malmö Redhawks · SHL

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 Indiana Ice USHL 6 0 2 2 0.333 0.2122 0.2131 0.9988 1.0032
2013-14 Sioux City Musketeers USHL 56 15 31 46 0.821 0.5231 0.5009 2.4615 2.3573
2014-15 Sioux City Musketeers USHL 59 31 40 71 1.203 0.7663 0.6962 3.6062 3.2761
2020-21 Malmö Redhawks SHL 21 7 5 12 0.571 — — — —
■ 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 Minnesota Duluth D1 NCHC SO 42 18 19 37 0.881
2015-16 Minnesota Duluth D1 NCHC FR 39 6 12 18 0.462
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.58
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.46
2015-16 · Minnesota Duluth
-19.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#815
Forward overall
#31
Forward born in 1994

D1 Comparables

Mike Szmatula
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.21 PPG
→ Northeastern (1.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.70 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Kyle Novak
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.20 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.70 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Michael Vecchione
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.95 PPG
→ Union (0.89 D1 FR PPG)
0.57 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Sam Anas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.98 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (1.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.60 Elite
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Neil Trimm
Neumann · 2003-04
1.800 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Arkhip Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Brandon Osmundson
Utica · 2018-19
1.448 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.