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

Andrew Toomey Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2005-05-21 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
2023-24 — NCDC 39 0 7 7 0.179 0.0732 0.0764 0.1443 0.1506
2024-25 — NCDC 41 3 16 19 0.463 0.1889 0.1887 — —
■ 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 Assumption D2 NE10 — 30 3 10 13 0.433
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.14
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.43
2025-26 · Assumption
+219.3% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

32%
NCAA D2/D3
2%
Club / ACHA
20%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#6206
Defenseman overall
#1525
Defenseman born in 2005

D1 Comparables

Dan Molenaar
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Christopher Dienes
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.15 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Tucker Poolman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.44 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.45 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
James Roll
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Victor Björkung
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Sebastian Panetta
SUNY Geneseo · 2003-04
0.615 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Tim Hennessey
Becker · 2007-08
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
John Meehan
Wesleyan · 2011-12
0.000 No data
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.