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

Sam Naegele Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1994-09-01 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
2013-14 Mason City Toros NA3HL 36 2 15 17 0.472 0.0522 0.0518 0.1496 0.1483
2014-15 Mason City Toros NA3HL 45 5 21 26 0.578 0.0639 0.0602 0.1830 0.1725
■ 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 Wisconsin-Stout D3 BigTen FR 17 0 2 2 0.118
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.05
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.12
2015-16 · Wisconsin-Stout
+119.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#13685
Defenseman overall
#1676
Defenseman born in 1994
#2265
in NA3HL

D1 Comparables

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
Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Carlson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Cadyn Campbell
Saint John's · 2024-25
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
James Miller
Augsburg · 2021-22
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Matthew Davies
Alvernia · 2021-22
0.500 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.