← New Search ↗ Social Card

David Chavis Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1995-04-20 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 Odessa Jackalopes NAHL 38 0 2 2 0.053 0.0193 0.0200 0.0555 0.0574
2014-15 Metro Jets NA3HL 43 8 18 26 0.605 0.0759 0.0739
2015-16 Metro Jets NA3HL 28 9 17 26 0.929 0.1165 0.1078 0.2639 0.2474
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
2019-20 Westfield State D1 MASCAC JR 26 0 2 2 0.077
2019-20 Westfield State D3 MASCAC 26 0 2 2 0.077
2018-19 Westfield State D1 MASCAC SO 23 0 2 2 0.087
2018-19 Westfield State D3 MASCAC 23 0 2 2 0.087
2017-18 Westfield State D3 MASCAC 17 1 3 4 0.235
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.09
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.24
2017-18 · Westfield State
+164.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#11202
Defenseman overall
#1551
Defenseman born in 1995
#3886
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.04 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ RIT (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Concordia · 2012-13
0.375 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
St. Norbert · 2012-13
0.393 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Suffolk · 2014-15
0.417 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.