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

Danny Greiner Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1988-12-04 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
2007-08 Brockville Braves CCHL 39 4 4 8 0.205 0.0655 0.0651 0.1588 0.1578
2008-09 Port Hope Predators OJHL 38 15 2 17 0.447 0.1344 0.1258 0.3062 0.2866
■ 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 Nichols D3 CNE SR 26 8 6 14 0.538
2011-12 Nichols D3 CNE JR 27 4 8 12 0.444
2010-11 Nichols D3 CNE SO 24 2 8 10 0.417
2009-10 Nichols D3 — FR 23 4 7 11 0.478
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.09
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.48
2009-10 · Nichols
+450.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#45360
Forward overall
#1495
Forward born in 1988

D1 Comparables

Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.22 No data
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tayler Munson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average
NCAAe PPG
Alexander Dahl
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Stanislav Dzakhov
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Niagara (0.44 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Nate Rogers
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2016-17
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Bryan Zurowski
SUNY Geneseo · 2018-19
0.267 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Nick Klishko
Wisconsin-Superior · 2016-17
0.267 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.