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

Stephen Ginand Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1991-09-12 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
2009-10 — AJHL 16 2 2 4 0.250 0.0835 0.0872 0.2321 0.2425
2010-11 Aberdeen Wings NAHL 3 1 1 2 0.667 0.2475 0.2484 0.7059 0.7086
■ 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
2012-13 UMass Dartmouth D3 HockeyEast SO 25 4 4 8 0.320
2011-12 UMass Dartmouth D3 ECAC FR 27 7 14 21 0.778
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.17
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.78
2011-12 · UMass Dartmouth
+348.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#14821
Defenseman overall
#1621
Defenseman born in 1991

D1 Comparables

Tommy Davis
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Princeton (0.29 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Christian Neumann
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ UConn (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Mike McKee
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Nate Repensky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ Yale (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Neal Goff
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Russell Anderson
Utica · 2006-07
1.059 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Braedyn Aubin
Norwich · 2017-18
0.542 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Cory Wilson
Lake Forest · 2000-01
0.731 Strong
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.