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

Paul Fischer Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2005-01-30 Country: USA
2023 · Round 5, Pick #138  ·  St. Louis Blues St. Louis Blues
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 — NTDP-U18 56 6 14 20 0.357 0.2654 0.2695 1.3325 1.3531
2022-23 — NTDP-U18 56 4 17 21 0.375 0.2787 0.2683 1.3993 1.3472
■ 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 Notre Dame D1 BigTen JR 33 6 17 23 0.697
2024-25 Notre Dame D1 BigTen SO 36 2 19 21 0.583
2023-24 Notre Dame D1 BigTen FR 34 2 14 16 0.471
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.25
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.47
2023-24 · Notre Dame
+85.5% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

78%
NCAA D1
2%
NCAA D2/D3
5%
Age-Out / Club
15%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#6603
Defenseman overall
#1601
Defenseman born in 2005

D1 Comparables

Clark Kuster
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ St. Cloud State
0.29 No data
NCAAe PPG
Will Butcher
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Denver (0.42 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Jack Stander
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Canisius (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Clint Lewis
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.30 PPG
→ Cornell (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Mark Auk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Elite D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Nate Pionk
St. Scholastica · 2014-15
0.615 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Joshua Burke
Amherst · 2018-19
0.692 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Jack Cooper
King's · 2018-19
1.000 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.