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

Nathan Flynn Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1993-11-26 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
2012-13 Wenatchee Wild NAHL 50 6 10 16 0.320 0.1137 0.1154 0.3360 0.3409
2013-14 — NAHL 61 9 11 20 0.328 0.1165 0.1124 0.3443 0.3321
■ 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
2017-18 Augsburg D3 MIAC SR 29 12 16 28 0.966
2016-17 Augsburg D3 MIAC JR 26 15 15 30 1.154
2015-16 Augsburg D3 MIAC SO 28 16 14 30 1.071
2014-15 Augsburg D3 MIAC FR 26 8 2 10 0.385
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.10
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.38
2014-15 · Augsburg
+295.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#40712
Forward overall
#1480
Forward born in 1993
#4329
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.22 No data
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tayler Munson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average
NCAAe PPG
Alexander Dahl
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Stanislav Dzakhov
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Niagara (0.44 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Bryce Howard
SUNY Geneseo · 2023-24
0.333 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Hunter Svicki
Canton · 2023-24
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Stefan Seel
Concordia · 2014-15
0.769 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.