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

Reid Anderson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1996-06-25 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
2015-16 Yorkton Terriers SJHL 16 3 3 6 0.375 0.0961 0.0953 0.2779 0.2756
2016-17 Yorkton Terriers SJHL 58 3 8 11 0.190 0.0486 0.0458 0.1406 0.1324
■ 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
2003-04 St. Olaf D3 — JR 1 0 0 0 0.000
2002-03 St. Olaf D3 — SO 8 0 0 0 0.000
2001-02 St. Olaf D3 — FR 7 0 0 0 0.000

NCAAe Rankings

#20150
Defenseman overall
#2405
Defenseman born in 1996
#1711
in SJHL

D1 Comparables

William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Carlson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Dominic Racobaldo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Marc-Antoine Carrier
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Theodore Austin
Plymouth State · 2018-19
0.385 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Zachary Borsoi
Utica · 2014-15
0.222 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Cole Essig
Lawrence · 2016-17
0.000 No data
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.