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

Andrew Clark Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1993-09-28 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
2011-12 — MJHL 48 1 3 4 0.083 0.0160 0.0168 0.0525 0.0553
2012-13 Waywayseecappo Wolverines MJHL 39 1 0 1 0.026 0.0049 0.0049 0.0161 0.0161
2013-14 Waywayseecappo Wolverines MJHL 58 0 10 10 0.172 0.0332 0.0316 0.1087 0.1035
■ 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
2017-18 St. Scholastica D3 MIAC SR 24 0 1 1 0.042
2016-17 St. Scholastica D3 MIAC JR 12 0 0 0 0.000
2015-16 St. Scholastica D3 MIAC SO 8 0 0 0 0.000
2014-15 St. Scholastica D3 MIAC FR 11 0 0 0 0.000

NCAAe Rankings

#29978
Defenseman overall
#2408
Defenseman born in 1993
#2318
in MJHL

D1 Comparables

Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.17 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

Milan Cermak
Chatham · 2022-23
0.227 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Matt Brown
Marian · 2009-10
0.304 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Anthony Venezia
Framingham State · 2024-25
0.273 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.