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

Justin Todd Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1985-01-31 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
2002-03 Winkler Flyers MJHL 61 17 24 41 0.672 0.1901 0.2013 0.4235 0.4485
2003-04 Winkler Flyers MJHL 55 27 29 56 1.018 0.2880 0.2916 0.6416 0.6496
■ 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 Lebanon Valley D3 — SO 24 13 10 23 0.958
2004-05 Lebanon Valley D3 — FR 24 10 8 18 0.750
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.22
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.75
2004-05 · Lebanon Valley
+242.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#14818
Forward overall
#540
Forward born in 1985
#279
in MJHL

D1 Comparables

Andrew Faust
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.68 PPG
→ Army (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Daniel Kucerovy
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.65 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Mason Jobst
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.86 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Albin Karlsson
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.60 PPG
→ Niagara (0.39 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Average
NCAAe PPG
Blake Winiecki
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ St. Cloud State (0.29 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Brent Chandler
Marian · 2002-03
0.731 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Chase Nieuwendyk
SUNY Brockport · 2009-10
0.667 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Brendan Fennell
Tufts · 2021-22
0.632 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.