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

Joel Langevin Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1988-09-08 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 Weyburn Red Wings SJHL 26 5 9 14 0.538 0.1556 0.1557 0.4054 0.4058
■ 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
2012-13 St. Scholastica D3 — SR 2 0 0 0 0.000
2011-12 St. Scholastica D3 — JR 9 2 1 3 0.333
2010-11 St. Scholastica D3 — SO 11 3 1 4 0.364
2009-10 St. Scholastica D3 — FR 16 2 3 5 0.312
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.13
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.31
2009-10 · St. Scholastica
+134.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#26665
Forward overall
#1078
Forward born in 1988
#933
in SJHL

D1 Comparables

Conor Andrle
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Army (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Average
NCAAe PPG
Conor Lemirande
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Miami (0.08 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Erik Baskin
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.44 PPG
→ Air Force (0.66 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Zach Szajner
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.59 PPG
→ Ferris State (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Landon Smith
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.79 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Kevin Paganini
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2018-19
0.625 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Nolan Craner
Wisconsin-River Falls · 2005-06
0.741 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Andrew Love
Neumann · 2007-08
0.650 Strong
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.