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

Felikss Gavars Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2002-05-15 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
2021-22 Fargo Force USHL 52 12 11 23 0.442 0.2609 0.2489 1.3284 1.2672
■ 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 Minnesota State D1 CCHA SR 7 1 0 1 0.143
2024-25 St. Lawrence D1 ECAC SR 34 6 9 15 0.441
2023-24 St. Lawrence D1 ECAC JR 39 13 12 25 0.641
2022-23 St. Lawrence D1 ECAC SO 36 3 9 12 0.333
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.21
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.33
2022-23 · St. Lawrence
+56.4% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

68%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
18%
Age-Out / Club
15%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#18905
Forward overall
#1009
Forward born in 2002
#1849
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Luc Gerdes
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.80 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tanner Pond
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tommy Schutt
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Alfred Larsson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.20 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Brett Skibba
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ UConn (0.23 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Tyler Resch
Manhattanville · 2000-01
1.154 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Dylan Clarke
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2005-06
1.267 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Connor Inger
New England College · 2016-17
0.692 Strong
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.