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

Nicklas Balboa Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1994-11-29 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
2013-14 — NAHL 25 4 8 12 0.480 0.1764 0.1790 0.5066 0.5141
2014-15 Express Hockey Club EHL 44 24 30 54 1.227 0.2835 0.2758 0.6005 0.5842
■ 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 Tufts D3 NESCAC — 19 3 3 6 0.316
2015-16 Tufts D3 NESCAC — 14 2 1 3 0.214
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.20
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.21
2015-16 · Tufts
+5.6% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#13835
Forward overall
#574
Forward born in 1994

D1 Comparables

Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Joseph-Matthew Manno
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.63 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.34 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.21 No data
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Siiro
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Princeton (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Alex Nagel
Wisconsin-Stout · 2017-18
0.423 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Aidan Canady
Post · 2023-24
0.630 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Anthony Ceolin
Fitchburg State · 2018-19
0.692 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.