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

John Roisum Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1993-03-05 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
2011-12 — NAHL 33 0 11 11 0.333 0.1321 0.1359 0.3499 0.3598
2012-13 Corpus Christi IceRays NAHL 51 1 19 20 0.392 0.1554 0.1520 0.4118 0.4028
■ 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 St. Thomas D3 — SR 25 7 6 13 0.520
2015-16 St. Thomas D3 — JR 24 3 10 13 0.542
2014-15 St. Thomas D3 — SO 11 1 7 8 0.727
2013-14 St. Thomas D3 — FR 12 1 3 4 0.333
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.14
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.33
2013-14 · St. Thomas
+142.6% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#11070
Defenseman overall
#1329
Defenseman born in 1993
#3915
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Vinny Muto
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Niagara (0.51 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Johnny Hrabovsky
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Air Force (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Max Everson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Harvard (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Parker
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Joseph Fiala
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Ross Andersen
Wisconsin-Eau Claire · 2010-11
0.708 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
John Grealish
UMass Dartmouth · 2017-18
0.600 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Brad Reitter
Canton · 2014-15
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.