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

Niks Krollis Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1999-03-01 Country: Latvia
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
2017-18 New Hampshire Avalanche EHL 34 8 16 24 0.706 0.1631 0.1697 0.3454 0.3595
2018-19 New Hampshire Avalanche EHL 27 10 23 33 1.222 0.2823 0.2796 — —
■ 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
2022-23 Plymouth State D3 LittleEast — 26 8 14 22 0.846
2021-22 Plymouth State D3 LittleEast — 13 3 5 8 0.615
2020-21 Norwich D1 LittleEast SO 8 3 2 5 0.625
2020-21 Norwich D3 LittleEast — 8 3 2 5 0.625
2019-20 Norwich D1 LittleEast FR 9 0 0 0 0.000
2019-20 Norwich D3 LittleEast — 9 0 0 0 0.000

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

20%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
32%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#2371
Defenseman overall
#536
Defenseman born in 1999

D1 Comparables

Victor Newell
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Harvard (0.67 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Taylor Fleming
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.48 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Connor Murphy
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.55 PPG
→ Cornell (0.20 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Barrett Kaib
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Providence (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.32 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Van Voorhis
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Denver (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Grigori Gotovets
Hamilton · 2018-19
0.909 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Thomas Williams
Hamilton · 2007-08
0.600 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Taylor Burden
Wisconsin-River Falls · 2010-11
0.667 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.