← New Search ↗ Social Card

Alex Petan Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1992-05-02 Country: Italy
Signed Professionally
Iserlohn Roosters · DEL

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
2009-10 Coquitlam Express BCHL 49 3 4 7 0.143 0.0532 0.0570 0.2082 0.2229
2010-11 Coquitlam Express BCHL 51 13 20 33 0.647 0.2410 0.2467 0.9429 0.9654
2011-12 Coquitlam Express BCHL 55 38 50 88 1.600 0.5960 0.5775 2.3314 2.2589
2019-20 Iserlohn Roosters DEL 50 8 19 27 0.540 0.5905 0.5905
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
2015-16 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA SR 36 18 15 33 0.917
2014-15 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA JR 41 15 25 40 0.976
2013-14 Michigan Tech D1 WCHA SO 39 11 17 28 0.718
2012-13 Michigan D1 CCHA-orig 37 15 19 34 0.919
2012-13 Michigan Tech D1 FR 37 15 19 34 0.919
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.38
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.92
2012-13 · Michigan
+141.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#5220
Forward overall
#262
Forward born in 1992

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 1.00 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.58 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.98 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (1.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.58 Elite
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.90 PPG
→ Northern Michigan (0.45 D1 FR PPG)
0.52 Average
NCAAe PPG
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.88 PPG
→ Miami (0.46 D1 FR PPG)
0.49 Average
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.77 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.45 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Wilkes · 2016-17
1.385 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Buffalo State · 2024-25
1.120 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Wilkes · 2016-17
1.423 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.