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

Chase Priskie Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1996-03-19 Country: USA
2016 · Round 6, Pick #177  ·  Washington Capitals Washington Capitals
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
2013-14 Fargo Force USHL 3 0 1 1 0.333 0.1966 0.2054 1.0010 1.0457
2014-15 Salmon Arm Silverbacks BCHL 57 6 14 20 0.351 0.1352 0.1383 0.5107 0.5223
■ 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 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC SR 36 17 22 39 1.083
2017-18 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC JR 37 11 14 25 0.676
2016-17 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC SO 38 7 19 26 0.684
2015-16 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC FR 43 4 22 26 0.605
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.60
2015-16 · Quinnipiac
+287.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Tim Davison
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.13 No data
NCAAe PPG
Zach Frye
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.19 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Garret Cockerill
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Justin Wade
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Notre Dame
0.10 No data
NCAAe PPG
Dane Cooper
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Brown (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Pat Power
Wisconsin-Superior · 2002-03
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Todd Schauss
Fredonia · 2014-15
0.478 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Shane LaVelle
Bethel · 2019-20
0.429 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.