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

Rihards Simanovics Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2003-10-07 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
2022-23 Amarillo Wranglers NAHL 53 16 29 45 0.849 0.3364 0.3416 0.8915 0.9053
■ 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
2025-26 Bowling Green D1 CCHA — 24 1 0 1 0.042
2024-25 Miami D1 NCHC — 34 1 3 4 0.118
2023-24 Miami D1 NCHC — 29 0 8 8 0.276
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.32
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.28
2023-24 · Miami
-14.4% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

22%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
25%
Age-Out / Club
52%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#2457
Defenseman overall
#593
Defenseman born in 2003
#467
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Ryan Murray
WHL · 2012-13 · 0.74 PPG
→ Hamline (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Mike McKee
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Nelson Armstrong
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Tommy Davis
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Princeton (0.29 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Lowney
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.65 PPG
→ Ferris State (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.39 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Trever Hertz
Utica · 2008-09
0.808 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Nikita Kozyrev
Buffalo State · 2017-18
1.231 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Lee Swallow
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2003-04
1.214 Elite
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.