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

Nick LaRue Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1991-12-09 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
2011-12 Granite City Lumberjacks NA3HL 47 14 20 34 0.723 0.1664 0.1570 0.2292 0.2163
■ 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
2015-16 Milwaukee School of Engineering D3 — SR 24 1 3 4 0.167
2014-15 Milwaukee School of Engineering D3 — JR 26 7 6 13 0.500
2013-14 Milwaukee School of Engineering D3 — SO 22 3 1 4 0.182
2012-13 Milwaukee School of Engineering D3 — FR 15 1 1 2 0.133
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.15
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.13
2012-13 · Milwaukee School of Engineering
-10.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#9118
Defenseman overall
#1168
Defenseman born in 1991
#1418
in NA3HL

D1 Comparables

Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.18 No data
NCAAe PPG
Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Taki Pantziris
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Brown
0.15 No data
NCAAe PPG
Nolan Valleau
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Bowling Green
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
Kyle McKenzie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.14 PPG
→ Providence (0.15 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Jordan Menke
Wisconsin-Superior · 2009-10
0.286 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Andrew Fisher
Wisconsin-Superior · 2006-07
0.214 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Danny Greiner
Nichols · 2008-09
0.478 Average
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.