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

Charlie McAvoy Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1997-12-21 Country: USA
2016 · Round 1, Pick #14  ·  Boston Bruins Boston Bruins
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 — NTDP-U18 54 7 12 19 0.352 0.2616 0.2753 1.3131 1.3819
2014-15 — NTDP-U18 63 7 33 40 0.635 0.4719 0.4738 2.3691 2.3784
■ 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 Boston University D1 HockeyEast — 38 5 21 26 0.684
2015-16 Boston University D1 HockeyEast — 37 3 22 25 0.676
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.37
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.68
2015-16 · Boston University
+81.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#1612
Defenseman overall
#368
Defenseman born in 1997

D1 Comparables

Mark Friedman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.55 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.49 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Ian McCoshen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.83 PPG
→ Boston College (0.37 D1 FR PPG)
0.52 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Charles Manley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ RPI (0.08 D1 FR PPG)
0.33 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Michael Brodzinski
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.54 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.34 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Nuttle
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.67 PPG
→ Cornell
0.41 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Joseph Fiorino
Southern New Hampshire · 2016-17
0.593 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Ryan Reifler
Elmira · 2016-17
1.067 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Nick Ford
Elmira · 2014-15
0.800 Strong
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.