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

James Devlin Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1993-11-09 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
2012-13 Kemptville 73's CCHL 27 1 2 3 0.111 0.0317 0.0314 0.0860 0.0852
2013-14 Boston Jr. Rangers EHL 41 7 11 18 0.439 0.0942 0.0911 0.2150 0.2079
■ 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 Finlandia D3 — SO 19 0 6 6 0.316
2014-15 Finlandia D3 — FR 23 5 4 9 0.391
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.06
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.39
2014-15 · Finlandia
+580.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#46617
Forward overall
#1868
Forward born in 1993

D1 Comparables

Ian Miller
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Nick DeCenzo
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Army (0.32 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
Evan Ritt
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.67 PPG
→ Denver
0.24 No data
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Dau
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Air Force (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Ryan Lieth
SUNY Potsdam · 2018-19
0.458 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Steven Phee
St. Scholastica · 2012-13
0.261 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Nick Klishko
Gustavus Adolphus · 2016-17
0.188 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.