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

Sean Farrell Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2001-11-02 Country: USA
2020 NHL Draft Round 4, Pick #124  ·  Montreal Canadiens Montreal Canadiens
Signed Professionally

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
2017-18 — NTDP-U18 61 9 31 40 0.656 0.5084 0.5340 2.4404 2.5633
2018-19 — NTDP-U18 64 11 27 38 0.594 0.4604 0.4601 2.2101 2.2087
2019-20 — USHL 44 15 41 56 1.273 0.7823 0.7823 3.7496 3.7496
2020-21 — USHL 53 29 72 101 1.906 1.1714 1.1714 5.6146 5.6146
■ 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
2022-23 Harvard D1 ECAC — 34 20 33 53 1.559
2021-22 Harvard D1 ECAC — 24 10 18 28 1.167
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.42
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.17
2021-22 · Harvard
+178.4% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

78%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
22%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Connor Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.34 D1 FR PPG)
0.48 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Karson Kuhlman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.56 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.45 D1 FR PPG)
0.37 Average
NCAAe PPG
Patrick Newell
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.75 PPG
→ St. Cloud State (0.59 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Hudson Fasching
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.53 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.75 D1 FR PPG)
0.41 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Austin Poganski
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.64 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.37 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Luke Aquaro
Hobart · 2016-17
1.231 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Sam Anderson
Albertus Magnus · 2017-18
0.720 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Ryan Reifler
Elmira · 2016-17
1.067 Elite
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.