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

Connor Yau Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1995-08-09 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
2013-14 Chicago Steel USHL 46 2 12 14 0.304 0.1795 0.1820 0.9139 0.9269
2014-15 Youngstown Phantoms USHL 59 2 9 11 0.186 0.1100 0.1062 0.5598 0.5402
■ 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
2018-19 Dartmouth D1 ECAC SR 34 2 14 16 0.471
2017-18 Dartmouth D1 ECAC JR 34 0 10 10 0.294
2016-17 Dartmouth D1 ECAC SO 29 1 11 12 0.414
2015-16 Dartmouth D1 ECAC FR 28 5 6 11 0.393
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.13
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.39
2015-16 · Dartmouth
+204.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#11370
Defenseman overall
#1564
Defenseman born in 1995
#3381
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Christian Neumann
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ UConn (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Neal Goff
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Tommy Davis
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Princeton (0.29 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Joe Schuldt
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Michigan Tech
0.05 No data
NCAAe PPG
James Roll
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Patrick Flynn
Babson · 2015-16
0.556 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Andrew Logar
Buffalo State · 2016-17
0.320 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Drew Gannon
UMass Boston · 2013-14
0.414 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.