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

Steve Eastman Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1984-03-09 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
2002-03 Topeka Scarecrows USHL 44 3 8 11 0.250 0.1592 0.1604 0.7492 0.7547
2003-04 St. Louis Heartland Eagles USHL 56 13 17 30 0.536 0.3411 0.3256 1.6053 1.5325
■ 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
2005-06 Bethel D3 — SO 27 12 18 30 1.111
2004-05 Bethel D3 — FR 11 8 2 10 0.909
2004-05 Quinnipiac D1 — FR 11 0 2 2 0.182
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.22
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.91
2004-05 · Bethel
+309.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#13139
Forward overall
#456
Forward born in 1984
#2001
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Eric Freschi
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.51 PPG
→ Cornell (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ben Foster
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.60 PPG
→ Princeton (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.36 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Siiro
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Princeton (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Average
NCAAe PPG
Devin Loe
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.85 PPG
→ Miami (0.71 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Charlie O'Connor
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.64 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.38 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Tyler Miller
St. Scholastica · 2008-09
0.852 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Ryan Bloom
New England · 2012-13
1.654 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Geordan Buffoline
New England · 2018-19
1.667 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.