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

Jason Tuthill Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1984-11-19 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
2003-04 Selkirk Steelers MJHL 60 3 8 11 0.183 0.0498 0.0499 0.1155 0.1158
2004-05 Selkirk Steelers MJHL 48 5 18 23 0.479 0.1303 0.1245 0.3020 0.2885
■ 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 St. Scholastica D3 — FR 18 1 3 4 0.222
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.09
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.22
2005-06 · St. Scholastica
+148.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#17475
Defenseman overall
#1325
Defenseman born in 1984
#1517
in MJHL

D1 Comparables

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

Bryan Zurowski
SUNY Geneseo · 2018-19
0.267 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Jacob Moreau
Connecticut College · 2015-16
0.522 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Nick Klishko
Wisconsin-Superior · 2016-17
0.267 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.