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

Alex Arnason Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1986-08-14 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 Santa Fe Roadrunners NAHL 48 6 14 20 0.417 0.1480 0.1537 0.4375 0.4544
2005-06 Santa Fe Roadrunners NAHL 55 13 11 24 0.382 0.1356 0.1341 0.4009 0.3965
■ 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
2009-10 St. Thomas D3 — SR 28 10 14 24 0.857
2008-09 St. Thomas D3 — JR 26 9 11 20 0.769
2007-08 St. Thomas D3 — SO 29 8 10 18 0.621
2006-07 St. Thomas D3 — FR 20 4 4 8 0.400
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.12
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.40
2006-07 · St. Thomas
+229.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#35312
Forward overall
#1124
Forward born in 1986
#3508
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Josh Erickson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Conor Andrle
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Army (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Average
NCAAe PPG
Jake Wood
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ RPI (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Zach Saar
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Penn State (0.33 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ben Greiner
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Kit Sitterley
UMass Boston · 2010-11
1.037 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Matt Wiesner
Babson · 2016-17
0.885 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
John Barrett
Wilkes · 2018-19
0.000 No data
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.