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

Trevor John Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1988-09-29 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
2007-08 Marquette Rangers NAHL 51 3 7 10 0.196 0.0720 0.0718 0.2070 0.2064
2008-09 Motor City Machine NAHL 55 6 16 22 0.400 0.1470 0.1393 0.4222 0.4000
■ 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
2010-11 Tufts D3 NESCAC — 15 3 4 7 0.467
2009-10 Tufts D3 NESCAC — 25 8 12 20 0.800
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.11
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.80
2009-10 · Tufts
+654.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#13305
Defenseman overall
#1369
Defenseman born in 1988
#4424
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Benjamin Gallacher
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG
Nolan Valleau
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Bowling Green
0.22 No data
NCAAe PPG
William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Connor Hagness
Wesleyan · 2023-24
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Noah Tano
Wentworth · 2025-26
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Zach Pease
Fredonia · 2014-15
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.