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

Daniel Gunning Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1996-01-20 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 — EHL 23 1 9 10 0.435 0.1530 0.1509 0.2132 0.2102
2016-17 Connecticut Nighthawks EHL 44 4 12 16 0.364 0.1280 0.1204 0.1783 0.1677
■ 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 UMass Dartmouth D3 HockeyEast SO 5 0 0 0 0.000
2017-18 UMass Dartmouth D3 HockeyEast FR 20 0 3 3 0.150
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.13
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.15
2017-18 · UMass Dartmouth
+19.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#11626
Defenseman overall
#1678
Defenseman born in 1996
#1511
in EHL

D1 Comparables

Michael Holland
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ RIT (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Carter Foguth
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.05 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
Dominic Racobaldo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 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

D2/3 Comparables

Myles Fee
Manhattanville · 2001-02
0.250 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Jagur McClelland
Utica · 2024-25
0.250 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
David Vieten
Williams · 2021-22
0.350 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.