| Season | Team | League | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | NCAAe-PPG | Age-Adj | D3e-PPG | Age-Adj |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013-14 | — | NTDP-U18 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.250 | 0.1938 | 0.1875 | 0.9305 | 0.9002 |
| 2014-15 | — | USHL | 8 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 1.250 | 0.7684 | 0.7672 | 3.6828 | 3.6769 |
| Season | School | Div | Conference | Year | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-18 | Harvard | D1 | ECAC | JR | 29 | 26 | 17 | 43 | 1.483 |
| 2016-17 | Harvard | D1 | ECAC | SO | 36 | 21 | 19 | 40 | 1.111 |
| 2015-16 | Harvard | D1 | ECAC | FR | 32 | 13 | 8 | 21 | 0.656 |
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.