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

Zach Trotman Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1990-08-26 Country: USA
2010 · Round 7, Pick #210  ·  Boston Bruins Boston Bruins
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
2008-09 Wichita Falls Wildcats NAHL 47 2 4 6 0.128 0.0469 0.0489 0.1348 0.1405
■ 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 Lake Superior State D1 CCHA JR 40 11 10 21 0.525
2010-11 Lake Superior State D1 CCHA SO 38 6 14 20 0.526
2009-10 Lake Superior State D1 CCHA FR 36 2 6 8 0.222
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.05
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.22
2009-10 · Lake Superior State
+381.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#25870
Defenseman overall
#2101
Defenseman born in 1990
#6602
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Zach Yoder
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.10 PPG
→ Air Force (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.06 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Jake Bischoff
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Kyle Mackey
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.16 PPG
→ Air Force (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Jimmy Mazza
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Canisius (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Doyle Somerby
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Boston University (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Doug Clifford
Adrian · 2008-09
0.250 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Greg Lever
Connecticut College · 2005-06
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Kyler Harding
Plymouth State · 2016-17
0.227 Developing
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.