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

Casey Esselman Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1996-07-01 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
2015-16 Granite City Lumberjacks NA3HL 45 8 24 32 0.711 0.0786 0.0774 0.2253 0.2220
2016-17 Granite City Lumberjacks NA3HL 46 4 20 24 0.522 0.0577 0.0539 0.1653 0.1545
■ 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 Concordia D3 MIAC — 24 1 4 5 0.208
2017-18 Concordia (WI) D3 — FR 24 1 4 5 0.208
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.06
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.21
2017-18 · Concordia
+248.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#11937
Defenseman overall
#1698
Defenseman born in 1996
#1931
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
Brandon Carlson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Dominic Racobaldo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Marc-Antoine Carrier
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Patrik Peltola
Anna Maria · 2018-19
0.375 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Tyler Nyman
Hamline · 2017-18
0.480 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Chase Freiermuth
Lake Forest · 2021-22
0.333 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.