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

Spencer Gourlay Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1993-06-23 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
2010-11 — OJHL 47 16 22 38 0.808 0.1982 0.2110 0.5567 0.5925
2011-12 King Rebellion OJHL 46 18 21 39 0.848 0.2078 0.2120 0.5837 0.5955
2012-13 King Rebellion OJHL 23 6 11 17 0.739 0.1812 0.1758 0.5089 0.4938
■ 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 SUNY Cortland D3 SUNYAC FR 11 2 2 4 0.364
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.36
2015-16 · SUNY Cortland
+123.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#23132
Forward overall
#805
Forward born in 1993
#1006
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Zach Saar
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Penn State (0.33 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Matt Pohlkamp
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Average
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Spezia
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Alfred Larsson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.20 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tanner Pond
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Killian Hammersmith
Saint Anselm · 2017-18
0.389 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Vincent Anderson
New England College · 2021-22
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Landry Schmuck
Aurora · 2022-23
1.571 Elite
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.