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

Fraser Smith Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1987-03-14 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
2005-06 Aurora Tigers OJHL 47 18 12 30 0.638 0.1783 0.1776 0.4405 0.4388
2006-07 — OJHL 48 29 26 55 1.146 0.3201 0.3028 0.7907 0.7481
■ 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
2010-11 SUNY Potsdam D3 — SR 24 12 9 21 0.875
2009-10 SUNY Potsdam D3 — JR 24 11 15 26 1.083
2008-09 SUNY Potsdam D3 — SO 25 16 9 25 1.000
2007-08 SUNY Potsdam D3 — FR 26 6 11 17 0.654
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.22
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.65
2007-08 · SUNY Potsdam
+202.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#13479
Forward overall
#562
Forward born in 1987
#767
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Eric Freschi
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.51 PPG
→ Cornell (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Devin Loe
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.85 PPG
→ Miami (0.71 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Evan Janssen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Denver (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Stanislav Dzakhov
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.69 PPG
→ Niagara (0.44 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Average
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Siiro
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Princeton (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Robert Clerc
SUNY Potsdam · 2016-17
0.625 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Timothy Weinstein
Trinity · 2016-17
3.000 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Nick Perruccio
Neumann · 2011-12
0.545 Average
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.