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

Matt Ward

Position: Forward DOB: ⚠ Missing — add in admin Country: ?
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
2001-02 Brooks Bandits AJHL 5 0 1 1 0.200 0.0671 0.0671 0.1854 0.1854
■ 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
2009-10 Neumann D3 — SR 23 10 17 27 1.174
2008-09 Neumann D3 — JR 27 21 21 42 1.556
2007-08 Neumann D3 — SO 26 4 14 18 0.692
2006-07 Neumann D3 — FR 24 14 27 41 1.708
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.06
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.71
2006-07 · Neumann
+2876.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Ryan Fitzgerald
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.12 PPG
→ Boston College (0.72 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Cédric Lacroix
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.13 PPG
→ Maine (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ian Mansfield
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Army (0.23 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Bo Pieper
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.19 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.34 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Matt Gaudreau
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Boston College (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Matt Bloomer
Castleton · 2015-16
0.375 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Damien Dangueuger
Western New England · 2015-16
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Brett Zeggil
Castleton · 2006-07
0.316 Developing
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.