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

Eddie Effinger Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1987-11-14 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
2005-06 Wichita Falls Wildcats NAHL 2 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2006-07 Wichita Falls Wildcats NAHL 53 11 12 23 0.434 0.1542 0.1546 0.4557 0.4568
■ 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
2011-12 Amherst D3 NESCAC SR 23 11 10 21 0.913
2010-11 Amherst D3 NESCAC JR 21 10 9 19 0.905
2009-10 Amherst D3 — SO 25 10 12 22 0.880
2008-09 Amherst D3 — FR 28 7 8 15 0.536
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.13
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.54
2008-09 · Amherst
+304.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#32737
Forward overall
#1031
Forward born in 1987
#3096
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Tyler Hynes
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.28 PPG
→ Union (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Dylan Gareau
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Clarkson (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Sebastian Weberg
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Colgate
0.13 No data
NCAAe PPG
Canon Pieper
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.28 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.08 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Kenny Gillespie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ RPI (0.20 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

John Celli
Fitchburg State · 2010-11
1.038 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Chris Blango
Buffalo State · 2021-22
0.440 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Ryan Markell
SUNY Cortland · 2005-06
0.792 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.