| Season | Team | League | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | NCAAe-PPG | Age-Adj | D3e-PPG | Age-Adj |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005-06 | Ravensburg Towerstars | DEL2 | 27 | 9 | 17 | 26 | 0.963 | 0.4154 | 0.4592 | — | — |
| 2006-07 | Ravensburg Towerstars | DEL2 | 27 | 9 | 17 | 26 | 0.963 | 0.4154 | 0.4592 | — | — |
| 2007-08 | Ravensburg Towerstars | DEL2 | 27 | 9 | 17 | 26 | 0.963 | 0.4154 | 0.4592 | — | — |
| 2008-09 | Ravensburg Towerstars | DEL2 | 27 | 9 | 17 | 26 | 0.963 | 0.4154 | 0.4592 | — | — |
| 2009-10 | Ravensburg Towerstars | DEL2 | 27 | 9 | 17 | 26 | 0.963 | 0.4154 | 0.4592 | — | — |
| 2010-11 | Ravensburg Towerstars | DEL2 | 27 | 9 | 17 | 26 | 0.963 | 0.4154 | 0.4592 | — | — |
| 2011-12 | Ravensburg Towerstars | DEL2 | 27 | 9 | 17 | 26 | 0.963 | 0.4154 | 0.4592 | — | — |
| 2012-13 | Ravensburg Towerstars | DEL2 | 27 | 9 | 17 | 26 | 0.963 | 0.4154 | 0.4592 | — | — |
| 2014-15 | St. Thomas Academy | USHS-MN | 25 | 27 | 36 | 63 | 2.520 | 0.6784 | 0.6392 | 0.6121 | 0.5767 |
| 2015-16 | Vernon Vipers | BCHL | 57 | 25 | 40 | 65 | 1.140 | 0.4248 | 0.4289 | 1.6617 | 1.6779 |
| 2016-17 | — | USHL | 59 | 16 | 32 | 48 | 0.814 | 0.5001 | 0.4694 | 2.3970 | 2.2498 |
| 2022-23 | Krefeld Pinguine | DEL2 | 12 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 1.250 | 0.5393 | 0.5607 | — | — |
| 2025-26 | Ravensburg Towerstars | DEL2 | 27 | 9 | 17 | 26 | 0.963 | 0.4154 | 0.4592 | — | — |
| Season | School | Div | Conference | Year | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-21 | Quinnipiac | D1 | ECAC | SR | 29 | 8 | 39 | 47 | 1.621 |
| 2019-20 | Quinnipiac | D1 | ECAC | JR | 34 | 7 | 31 | 38 | 1.118 |
| 2018-19 | Quinnipiac | D1 | ECAC | SO | 38 | 15 | 27 | 42 | 1.105 |
| 2017-18 | Quinnipiac | D1 | ECAC | FR | 38 | 9 | 32 | 41 | 1.079 |
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.