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

Noah Henry Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1994-03-04 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
2012-13 — BCHL 52 2 14 16 0.308 0.1186 0.1202 0.4478 0.4538
■ 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 Union D1 ECAC JR 24 1 5 6 0.250
2014-15 Union D1 ECAC SO 33 1 7 8 0.242
2013-14 Union D1 ECAC FR 30 0 1 1 0.033
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.11
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.03
2013-14 · Union
-70.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#14971
Defenseman overall
#1779
Defenseman born in 1994
#2490
in BCHL

D1 Comparables

Tim Davison
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.13 No data
NCAAe PPG
Zach Frye
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.19 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Garret Cockerill
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Justin Woods
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Sam Piazza
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.16 PPG
→ Michigan (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Shawn Kennedy
Elmira · 2017-18
1.133 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Tim Kobler
Connecticut College · 2017-18
0.800 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Hayden Johnson
Lawrence · 2020-21
0.364 Average
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.