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

Patrick Holway Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1996-10-01 Country: USA
2015 · Round 6, Pick #170  ·  Detroit Red Wings Detroit Red Wings
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
2015-16 — USHL 44 1 7 8 0.182 0.1072 0.1046 0.5460 0.5328
■ 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
2020-21 Merrimack D1 HockeyEast SR 18 3 6 9 0.500
2019-20 Merrimack D1 HockeyEast JR 17 3 7 10 0.588
2017-18 Maine D1 HockeyEast SO 33 6 13 19 0.576
2016-17 Maine D1 HockeyEast FR 33 4 9 13 0.394
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.10
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.39
2016-17 · Maine
+299.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#15341
Defenseman overall
#1997
Defenseman born in 1996
#3722
in USHL

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
Mike Preston
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.07 PPG
→ Army (0.16 D1 FR PPG)
0.04 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

Peyton Frantti
St. Norbert · 2016-17
0.871 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Tanner Spink
SUNY Oswego · 2015-16
0.591 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
C.J. Shugart
Williams · 2013-14
0.591 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.