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

Wade Richardson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1980-03-17 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
2000-01 Brooks Bandits AJHL 60 20 37 57 0.950 0.3186 0.2920 0.8763 0.8032
■ 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
2004-05 Manhattanville D3 UCHC SR 25 12 4 16 0.640
2003-04 Manhattanville D3 UCHC JR 16 6 6 12 0.750
2002-03 Manhattanville D3 UCHC SO 23 6 5 11 0.478
2001-02 Manhattanville D3 UCHC FR 25 5 2 7 0.280
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.25
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.28
2001-02 · Manhattanville
+12.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#14631
Forward overall
#342
Forward born in 1980
#252
in AJHL

D1 Comparables

Emil Romig
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.00 PPG
→ Denver (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.34 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jonathan Davis
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.03 PPG
→ Nebraska Omaha (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Sean Gaffney
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.14 PPG
→ UConn (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.39 Developing
NCAAe PPG
A.J. Reid
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.18 PPG
→ Air Force (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.40 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Woody Hudson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Buster Larsson
Utica · 2018-19
0.679 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Adam Tretowicz
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2018-19
0.720 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Brian Arrigoni
Hamline · 2007-08
1.036 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.