| Season | Team | League | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG | NCAAe-PPG | Age-Adj | D3e-PPG | Age-Adj |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011-12 | New Ulm Steel | NA3HL | 31 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 0.129 | 0.0143 | 0.0152 | 0.0409 | 0.0435 |
| 2012-13 | New Ulm Steel | NA3HL | 38 | 14 | 18 | 32 | 0.842 | 0.0931 | 0.0944 | 0.2668 | 0.2704 |
| Season | School | Div | Conference | Year | GP | G | A | Pts | PPG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-18 | Finlandia | D3 | — | JR | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.000 |
| 2016-17 | Finlandia | D3 | — | SO | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.000 |
| 2015-16 | Finlandia | D3 | — | FR | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.000 |
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.