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

Connor McKenzie Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1995-02-28 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
2013-14 Estevan Bruins SJHL 44 1 2 3 0.068 0.0175 0.0180 0.0514 0.0528
2014-15 East Coast Wizards EHL 17 0 2 2 0.118 0.0272 0.0268 — —
2015-16 Connecticut Nighthawks EHL 32 5 4 9 0.281 0.0650 0.0612 0.1376 0.1295
■ 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
2016-17 Worcester State D3 MASCAC — 18 5 1 6 0.333
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.04
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.33
2016-17 · Worcester State
+720.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#55023
Forward overall
#2485
Forward born in 1995

D1 Comparables

Ali Thomas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Eli Lichtenwald
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.36 PPG
→ Union (0.68 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.21 No data
NCAAe PPG
Tayler Munson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Average
NCAAe PPG
Alexander Dahl
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Conner Enciso
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2013-14
0.250 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Joseph Hall
Elmira · 2015-16
0.158 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Tristyn Sabina
Saint John's · 2016-17
0.125 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.