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

Tristan Simm Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1997-01-08 Country: Canada
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 Greater Sudbury Cubs NOJHL 52 11 10 21 0.404 0.0681 0.0685 0.1678 0.1688
2016-17 Greater Sudbury Cubs NOJHL 49 23 23 46 0.939 0.1583 0.1516 0.3901 0.3735
■ 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
2021-22 Chatham D3 UCHC SR 24 6 15 21 0.875
2020-21 Chatham D3 UCHC JR 13 2 5 7 0.538
2019-20 Chatham D3 UCHC SO 22 4 2 6 0.273
2018-19 Chatham D3 UCHC FR 25 3 9 12 0.480
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.10
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.48
2018-19 · Chatham
+373.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#33277
Forward overall
#1511
Forward born in 1997
#424
in NOJHL

D1 Comparables

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
Evan Ritt
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.67 PPG
→ Denver
0.24 No data
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Dau
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Air Force (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tayler Munson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

A.J. Bella
Manhattanville · 2018-19
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Max Rasberg
New England · 2015-16
0.964 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Ian Zaleski
Becker · 2018-19
0.476 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.