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

Max Doner Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-11-29 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
2014-15 Yellowstone Quake NA3HL 47 15 22 37 0.787 0.0949 0.1001 0.2487 0.2623
2015-16 Yellowstone Quake NA3HL 47 30 26 56 1.192 0.1436 0.1445 0.3764 0.3787
2016-17 Yellowstone Quake NA3HL 45 28 37 65 1.444 0.1741 0.1664 0.4563 0.4360
■ 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
2018-19 Wisconsin-River Falls D3 BigTen SO 8 0 0 0 0.000
2017-18 Wisconsin-River Falls D3 BigTen FR 24 3 3 6 0.250
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.13
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.25
2017-18 · Wisconsin-River Falls
+85.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#28291
Forward overall
#1211
Forward born in 1996
#442
in NA3HL

D1 Comparables

Ian Miller
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Nick DeCenzo
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Army (0.32 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Evan Ritt
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.67 PPG
→ Denver
0.24 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Ian Zaleski
Becker · 2018-19
0.476 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Ryan Webb
Suffolk · 2021-22
0.609 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Parker Williams
Concordia Wisconsin · 2021-22
0.455 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.