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

Joseph Mottiqua Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1992-02-20 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 Texas Tornado NAHL 40 5 3 8 0.200 0.0735 0.0754 0.2111 0.2166
2011-12 — NAHL 56 12 15 27 0.482 0.1771 0.1730 0.5089 0.4970
2012-13 Jamestown Ironmen NAHL 56 4 14 18 0.321 0.1181 0.1094 0.3392 0.3142
■ 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
2014-15 Wentworth D3 CNE — 20 2 2 4 0.200
2013-14 Wentworth D3 CNE — 25 3 5 8 0.320
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.12
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.32
2013-14 · Wentworth
+177.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#38948
Forward overall
#1470
Forward born in 1992
#4094
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Ali Thomas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Yasin Cissé
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Boston University
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
Will Suter
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Eli Lichtenwald
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.36 PPG
→ Union (0.68 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Woody Hudson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Jared Williams
Wisconsin-Eau Claire · 2009-10
0.455 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Nick Minerva
Aurora · 2016-17
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Eric Benshadle
Trinity · 2016-17
0.542 Average
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.