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

Matt Staehely Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1986-06-01 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
2004-05 Springfield Spirit NAHL 43 13 15 28 0.651 0.2313 0.2379 0.6837 0.7031
2005-06 — NAHL 49 5 12 17 0.347 0.1232 0.1206 0.3642 0.3565
■ 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
2008-09 St. Mary's D3 — JR 21 6 4 10 0.476
2007-08 St. Mary's D3 — SO 23 6 10 16 0.696
2006-07 St. Mary's D3 — FR 25 9 9 18 0.720
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.14
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.72
2006-07 · St. Mary's
+402.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#30151
Forward overall
#974
Forward born in 1986
#2695
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Tyler Spezia
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ben Greiner
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average
NCAAe PPG
Matthew Hansen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.25 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Matt Pohlkamp
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Average
NCAAe PPG
Zach Saar
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Penn State (0.33 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Blake Huppert
Wisconsin-River Falls · 2009-10
0.556 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Brandon Ratzloff
Augsburg · 2017-18
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Demetri Sakaris
Southern Maine · 2009-10
0.444 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.