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

Art Clark Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1985-09-09 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
2005-06 — NAHL 48 1 8 9 0.188 0.0666 0.0628 0.1978 0.1864
■ 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 Wisconsin-Superior D3 WIAC SR 16 3 3 6 0.375
2008-09 Wisconsin-Superior D3 WIAC JR 24 4 10 14 0.583
2007-08 Wisconsin-Superior D3 WIAC SO 16 1 5 6 0.375
2006-07 Wisconsin-Superior D3 WIAC FR 8 1 5 6 0.750
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.06
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.75
2006-07 · Wisconsin-Superior
+1164.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#21467
Defenseman overall
#1632
Defenseman born in 1985
#6008
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Carlson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Colin Anna
SUNY Cortland · 2022-23
0.333 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Joe Burgmeier
Concordia · 2015-16
0.120 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Taylor Vichorek
Hamline · 2008-09
0.500 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.