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

Cade Christenson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2004-11-02 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
2021-22 Sherwood Park Crusaders AJHL 51 4 11 15 0.294 0.0976 0.1070 0.2726 0.2989
2022-23 Sherwood Park Crusaders AJHL 51 8 21 29 0.569 0.1887 0.1976 0.5270 0.5517
2023-24 Sherwood Park Crusaders AJHL 47 11 25 36 0.766 0.2542 0.2541 0.7099 0.7098
■ 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 Penn State D1 BigTen SO 21 5 2 7 0.333
2024-25 Penn State D1 BigTen — 39 2 7 9 0.231
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.22
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.23
2024-25 · Penn State
+5.6% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

40%
NCAA D1
2%
NCAA D2/D3
20%
Age-Out / Club
38%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#4077
Defenseman overall
#1071
Defenseman born in 2004

D1 Comparables

Nelson Armstrong
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Murray
WHL · 2012-13 · 0.74 PPG
→ Hamline (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Dakota Mermis
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Denver (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Tommy Davis
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Princeton (0.29 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Eric Schurhamer
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Maine (0.37 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Matt Stengl
St. Scholastica · 2004-05
0.826 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Patrick Jobb
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2007-08
0.556 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Russell Anderson
Utica · 2006-07
1.059 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.