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

Mattias Samuelsson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2000-03-14 Country: USA
2018 · Round 1, Pick #32  ·  Buffalo Sabres Buffalo Sabres
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
2016-17 — NTDP-U18 47 6 10 16 0.340 0.2530 0.2579 1.2702 1.2948
2017-18 — NTDP-U18 58 11 20 31 0.534 0.3973 0.3848 1.9944 1.9315
■ 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
2019-20 Western Michigan D1 NCHC SO 30 2 12 14 0.467
2018-19 Western Michigan D1 NCHC FR 35 5 7 12 0.343
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.32
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.34
2018-19 · Western Michigan
+8.8% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

85%
NCAA D1
2%
NCAA D2/D3
12%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Matt Nuttle
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.67 PPG
→ Cornell
0.41 No data
NCAAe PPG
Luke Voltin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Northern Michigan (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Clark Kuster
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ St. Cloud State
0.29 No data
NCAAe PPG
Will Butcher
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.55 PPG
→ Denver (0.42 D1 FR PPG)
0.39 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Jordan Gross
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.48 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.67 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Elite D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Brycon Johnson
Bryn Athyn · 2014-15
0.778 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Zach Tarantino
UMass Dartmouth · 2017-18
0.667 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Justin Fox
Salem State · 2005-06
1.429 Elite
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.