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

Alex Spencer Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1997-11-10 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
2014-15 Duluth East High USHS-MN 24 2 1 3 0.125 0.0336 0.0331 0.0304 0.0299
2016-17 Shreveport Mudbugs NAHL 42 0 2 2 0.048 0.0189 0.0191 0.0500 0.0506
2017-18 — NAHL 54 2 8 10 0.185 0.0734 0.0706 0.1944 0.1870
■ 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
2018-19 Wisconsin-Superior D1 BigTen FR 5 0 0 0 0.000
2018-19 Wisconsin-Superior D3 BigTen FR 5 0 0 0 0.000

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

35%
NCAA D1
20%
NCAA D2/D3
45%
Age-Out / Club
0%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#26618
Defenseman overall
#3129
Defenseman born in 1997

D1 Comparables

Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.18 No data
NCAAe PPG
Kyle McKenzie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.14 PPG
→ Providence (0.15 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Taki Pantziris
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Brown
0.15 No data
NCAAe PPG
Matt Fuller
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.11 PPG
→ Southern Maine (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.06 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Clayton Rehm
St. Thomas · 2004-05
0.318 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Carter Bollinger
Wisconsin-Stout · 2025-26
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Nick Schultze
Tufts · 2017-18
0.375 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.