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

Andrew Sprouse Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1993-05-28 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 Cleveland Jr. Lumberjacks NA3HL 45 2 12 14 0.311 0.0390 0.0397 0.0982 0.0999
2012-13 Cleveland Jr. Lumberjacks NA3HL 47 3 33 36 0.766 0.0961 0.0929 0.2418 0.2339
■ 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 Concordia D3 MIAC — 0 0 0 0 0.000
2014-15 Concordia D3 MIAC — 2 0 0 0 0.000
2014-15 Concordia (WI) D3 NCHA SO 2 0 0 0 0.000

NCAAe Rankings

#12651
Defenseman overall
#1456
Defenseman born in 1993
#2030
in NA3HL

D1 Comparables

James Roll
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Dan Molenaar
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Cameron McDonald
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.11 PPG
→ Providence (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.05 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Johnny Hrabovsky
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Air Force (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Aleksi Rossi
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ Brown
0.08 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Ryan Martin
Johnson & Wales · 2009-10
0.391 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Max Newnam
Nichols · 2018-19
0.333 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Brett Mecrones
University of New England · 2015-16
0.480 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.