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

Zach Paisley Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1992-06-08 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 New Mexico Mustangs NAHL 19 1 2 3 0.158 0.0580 0.0604 0.1667 0.1735
2011-12 Minot Minotauros NAHL 14 0 3 3 0.214 0.0787 0.0780 0.2262 0.2243
■ 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
2016-17 Daniel Webster D3 — SO 12 1 3 4 0.333
2015-16 Daniel Webster D3 — FR 22 4 8 12 0.545
2013-14 Canton D3 SUNYAC FR 18 4 4 8 0.444
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.06
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.44
2013-14 · Canton
+632.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#51860
Forward overall
#2000
Forward born in 1992
#5967
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Ben Greiner
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Spezia
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Josh Erickson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Matthew Hansen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.25 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing
NCAAe PPG
William Messa
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Northeastern
0.12 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Jerad Tafoya
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2012-13
0.714 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Cody Kostecki
Concordia · 2010-11
0.700 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Pavel Mikhasenok
Wisconsin-Superior · 2015-16
0.154 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.