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

Liam McGing Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1995-08-04 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
2012-13 Aberdeen Wings NAHL 43 0 5 5 0.116 0.0427 0.0469 0.1228 0.1350
2013-14 Chicago Steel USHL 42 0 7 7 0.167 0.0983 0.0996 0.5007 0.5075
2014-15 — USHL 58 2 3 5 0.086 0.0508 0.0490 0.2589 0.2497
■ 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 Arizona State D1 NCHC JR 14 0 1 1 0.071
2016-17 Arizona State D1 NCHC SO 27 0 7 7 0.259
2015-16 Arizona State D1 NCHC FR 20 1 3 4 0.200
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.07
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.20
2015-16 · Arizona State
+205.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#22763
Defenseman overall
#2426
Defenseman born in 1995

D1 Comparables

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

D2/3 Comparables

Mark Rath
St. Olaf · 2011-12
0.417 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Tim Crowley
SUNY Brockport · 2003-04
0.440 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Matthew Shaw
Marian · 2021-22
0.000 No data
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.