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

Vick Schlueter Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1987-04-11 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
2007-08 Collingwood Blues OJHL 27 14 22 36 1.333 0.3725 0.3370 0.9201 0.8324
■ 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
2011-12 SUNY Plattsburgh D3 — SR 27 7 7 14 0.518
2010-11 SUNY Plattsburgh D3 — JR 28 8 13 21 0.750
2009-10 SUNY Plattsburgh D3 — SO 25 9 6 15 0.600
2008-09 SUNY Plattsburgh D3 — FR 23 5 5 10 0.435
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.29
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.43
2008-09 · SUNY Plattsburgh
+50.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#6460
Forward overall
#267
Forward born in 1987
#155
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Jordan Nelson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.59 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.34 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Carlos Amestoy
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.75 PPG
→ Maine
0.40 No data
NCAAe PPG
Davey Middleton
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Brown (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Developing
NCAAe PPG
David Goodwin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.67 PPG
→ Penn State (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.38 Average
NCAAe PPG
Justin Parizek
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.93 PPG
→ Nebraska Omaha (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.32 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Conor Foley
Franklin Pierce · 2018-19
0.710 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Dale Lupul
Wisconsin-Superior · 2000-01
0.759 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Derek Hansberry
Wisconsin-River Falls · 2004-05
1.259 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.