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

Adam Laite Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1988-09-27 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 Northern Manitoba Blizzard MJHL 37 4 19 23 0.622 0.1759 0.1751 0.3917 0.3900
■ 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 New England D3 — SR 25 10 15 25 1.000
2011-12 New England D3 — JR 25 5 10 15 0.600
2010-11 New England D3 — SO 21 5 9 14 0.667
2009-10 Morrisville D3 — FR 14 5 1 6 0.429
2009-10 New England D3 — FR 11 4 5 9 0.818
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.15
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.43
2009-10 · Morrisville
+185.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#23521
Forward overall
#976
Forward born in 1988
#692
in MJHL

D1 Comparables

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

D2/3 Comparables

Zac Sikich
SUNY Brockport · 2012-13
0.440 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Alex Morton
Fredonia · 2006-07
0.480 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Andrew Froese
Finlandia · 2016-17
0.333 Developing
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.