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

Charlie Adams Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1992-03-15 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
2010-11 Austin Bruins NAHL 56 17 24 41 0.732 0.2600 0.2676 0.7686 0.7910
2011-12 Austin Bruins NAHL 60 18 33 51 0.850 0.3019 0.2958 0.8924 0.8744
■ 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
2015-16 Hamline D3 MIAC — 27 21 28 49 1.815
2014-15 Hamline D3 MIAC — 27 19 15 34 1.259
2013-14 St. Thomas D3 — — 7 1 0 1 0.143
2012-13 Nebraska Omaha D1 CCHA-orig — 14 2 0 2 0.143
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.24
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.14
2012-13 · Nebraska Omaha
-41.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#14072
Forward overall
#536
Forward born in 1992
#604
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Eric Freschi
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.51 PPG
→ Cornell (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Cameron Brown
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.59 PPG
→ Maine (0.54 D1 FR PPG)
0.33 Average
NCAAe PPG
Devin Loe
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.85 PPG
→ Miami (0.71 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Ben Foster
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.60 PPG
→ Princeton (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.33 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Evan Janssen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Denver (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Arlen Marshall
Manhattanville · 2004-05
0.840 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Adam Kudynski
Lebanon Valley · 2003-04
0.909 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Jory McWilliams
Bethel · 2017-18
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.