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

Terrance Amorosa Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1994-11-13 Country: Italy
2013 · Round 5, Pick #132  ·  Philadelphia Flyers Philadelphia Flyers
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
2013-14 Sioux City Musketeers USHL 50 2 13 15 0.300 0.1770 0.1730 0.9010 0.8806
■ 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 Clarkson D1 ECAC SR 40 7 20 27 0.675
2016-17 Clarkson D1 ECAC JR 30 3 13 16 0.533
2015-16 Clarkson D1 ECAC SO 27 4 12 16 0.593
2014-15 Clarkson D1 ECAC FR 18 1 4 5 0.278
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.28
2014-15 · Clarkson
+70.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#7847
Defenseman overall
#1180
Defenseman born in 1994
#2876
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Eric Schurhamer
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Maine (0.37 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Cliff Watson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Dakota Mermis
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Denver (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Vince Pedrie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Penn State (0.69 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Nelson Armstrong
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Richard Manley
SUNY Geneseo · 2008-09
1.150 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Eric Selleck
SUNY Oswego · 2006-07
1.000 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Tristan Mock
Becker · 2018-19
0.444 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.