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

Critter Nagurski Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1983-05-04 Country: USA
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 Tulsa Crude USHL 54 11 10 21 0.389 0.2391 0.2456 1.1458 1.1768
2002-03 Green Bay Gamblers USHL 19 1 4 5 0.263 0.1618 0.1561 0.7754 0.7483
■ 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
2006-07 Augsburg D3 — SR 26 17 23 40 1.538
2005-06 Augsburg D3 — JR 25 21 13 34 1.360
2004-05 Augsburg D3 — SO 25 17 15 32 1.280
2003-04 Augsburg D3 — FR 22 5 7 12 0.545
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.55
2003-04 · Augsburg
+232.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#29191
Forward overall
#823
Forward born in 1983
#2788
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Matthew Hansen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.25 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG
William Messa
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Northeastern
0.12 No data
NCAAe PPG
Mike Robinson
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.19 PPG
→ New Hampshire
0.10 No data
NCAAe PPG
Tommy Schutt
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Spezia
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Nick Perruccio
Neumann · 2011-12
0.545 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Aaron Leonard
Marian · 2009-10
0.538 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Matthew Manning
Worcester State · 2015-16
0.750 Strong
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.