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

Andrew Martin Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1992-09-23 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 North Bay Trappers NOJHL 42 2 14 16 0.381 0.0636 0.0633 0.1586 0.1580
2012-13 North Bay Trappers NOJHL 32 1 14 15 0.469 0.0783 0.0740 0.1952 0.1844
■ 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 Finlandia D3 — SR 24 2 3 5 0.208
2015-16 Finlandia D3 — JR 17 0 2 2 0.118
2014-15 Finlandia D3 — SO 17 1 2 3 0.176
2013-14 Finlandia D3 — FR 16 0 1 1 0.062
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.07
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.06
2013-14 · Finlandia
-5.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#16668
Defenseman overall
#1761
Defenseman born in 1992

D1 Comparables

Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG
Nolan Valleau
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Bowling Green
0.22 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Austin Romzek
Nazareth · 2014-15
0.381 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Jackson McCarthy
Gustavus Adolphus · 2022-23
0.615 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Éric David
Elmira · 2010-11
0.360 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.