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

Kirk MacDonald Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1983-12-18 Country: Canada
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
2000-01 Victoria Grizzlies BCHL 46 9 7 16 0.348 0.1340 0.1468 0.5062 0.5547
2001-02 Victoria Grizzlies BCHL 49 27 23 50 1.020 0.3932 0.4092 1.4850 1.5454
■ 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
2006-07 RPI D1 ECAC SR 33 12 15 27 0.818
2004-05 RPI D1 ECAC JR 37 16 20 36 0.973
2003-04 RPI D1 ECAC SO 39 15 19 34 0.872
2002-03 RPI D1 ECAC FR 28 4 2 6 0.214
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.26
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.21
2002-03 · RPI
-17.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#18363
Forward overall
#590
Forward born in 1983
#830
in BCHL

D1 Comparables

C.J. Smith
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.98 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.90 D1 FR PPG)
0.38 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Alex Roos
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.49 D1 FR PPG)
0.44 Average
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Kelleher
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ New Hampshire (0.43 D1 FR PPG)
0.44 Average
NCAAe PPG
Evan Allen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.62 PPG
→ Michigan (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.38 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jake Jackson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.09 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

James Tatro
Salem State · 2021-22
1.269 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Maxwell Donohoe
Neumann · 2021-22
1.500 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Collin Patterson
UMass Dartmouth · 2021-22
1.125 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.