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

Kiefer Sherwood Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1995-03-31 Country: USA
Signed Professionally

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 11 0 2 2 0.182 0.1158 0.1208 0.5448 0.5682
2013-14 — USHL 55 13 19 32 0.582 0.3705 0.3691 1.7435 1.7370
2014-15 — USHL 60 29 27 56 0.933 0.5943 0.5629 2.7968 2.6489
■ 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 Miami D1 NCHC JR 36 9 21 30 0.833
2016-17 Miami D1 NCHC SO 36 14 24 38 1.056
2015-16 Miami D1 NCHC FR 34 11 7 18 0.529
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.42
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.53
2015-16 · Miami
+27.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Dominik Shine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.90 PPG
→ Northern Michigan (0.45 D1 FR PPG)
0.54 Average
NCAAe PPG
Michael Vecchione
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.95 PPG
→ Union (0.89 D1 FR PPG)
0.57 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Biggs
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.88 PPG
→ Miami (0.46 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Average
NCAAe PPG
Phil Marinaccio
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.77 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.47 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Chad McDonald
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Ferris State (0.48 D1 FR PPG)
0.47 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Ryan Reifler
Elmira · 2017-18
1.067 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Zach Dill
Salem State · 2021-22
1.111 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Rihards Marenis
Aurora · 2013-14
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.