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

Adam Valentini Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2008-04-11 Country: Canada
2026 NHL Draft Eligible
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
2024-25 Chicago Steel USHL 58 17 22 39 0.672 0.4282 0.4696 2.0150 2.2098
■ 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
2025-26 Michigan D1 BigTen — 40 11 16 27 0.675
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.40
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.68
2025-26 · Michigan
+67.9% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

78%
NCAA D1
2%
NCAA D2/D3
2%
Age-Out / Club
18%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#4419
Forward overall
#57
Forward born in 2008
#678
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Ryan Hitchcock
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.59 PPG
→ Yale (0.45 D1 FR PPG)
0.48 Average
NCAAe PPG
Seamus Malone
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.54 PPG
→ Wisconsin (0.74 D1 FR PPG)
0.38 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Austin Poganski
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.64 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.37 D1 FR PPG)
0.51 Average
NCAAe PPG
Cullen Munson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Minnesota
0.35 No data
NCAAe PPG
Nick Schmaltz
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.81 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.68 D1 FR PPG)
0.56 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Luke Aquaro
Hobart · 2016-17
1.231 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Sam Anderson
Albertus Magnus · 2017-18
0.720 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Ryan Reifler
Elmira · 2016-17
1.067 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.