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

Chris Reiniger Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2006-03-27 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
2023-24 Chicago Steel USHL 56 2 7 9 0.161 0.0988 0.1033 0.4735 0.4951
2024-25 Chicago Steel USHL 61 6 16 22 0.361 0.2217 0.2205 1.0627 1.0569
■ 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 Princeton D1 ECAC FR 21 1 3 4 0.191
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.19
2025-26 · Princeton
+16.2% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

78%
NCAA D1
8%
NCAA D2/D3
8%
Age-Out / Club
8%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#8726
Defenseman overall
#1792
Defenseman born in 2006
#3082
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Clay Anderson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Harvard (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Jeff Taylor
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Union (0.39 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Tim Davison
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.14 No data
NCAAe PPG
Justin Woods
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Garret Cockerill
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Tyler Braccini
Bethel · 2019-20
0.727 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Parker Mismash
St. Scholastica · 2014-15
0.615 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Connor Armour
Adrian · 2012-13
1.357 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.