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

Beau Moyer Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1981-02-23 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
2000-01 Couchiching Terriers OJHL 49 29 81 110 2.245 0.6272 0.5764 1.5492 1.4237
■ 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
2004-05 Wisconsin-Superior D3 — SR 27 9 17 26 0.963
2003-04 Wisconsin-Superior D3 — JR 25 10 11 21 0.840
2002-03 Wisconsin-Superior D3 — SO 27 8 8 16 0.593
2001-02 Wisconsin-Superior D3 — FR 24 4 13 17 0.708
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.54
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.71
2001-02 · Wisconsin-Superior
+32.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#1083
Forward overall
#70
Forward born in 1981
#2
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Michael Vecchione
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.95 PPG
→ Union (0.89 D1 FR PPG)
0.57 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Chad McDonald
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Ferris State (0.48 D1 FR PPG)
0.47 Average
NCAAe PPG
Dominik Shine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.90 PPG
→ Northern Michigan (0.45 D1 FR PPG)
0.54 Average
NCAAe PPG
Phil Marinaccio
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.77 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.47 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Biggs
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.88 PPG
→ Miami (0.46 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Scott Cuthrell
Nichols · 2013-14
0.704 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Kyle Cook
Nichols · 2011-12
1.185 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Randall Smisko
Wisconsin-Superior · 2000-01
1.000 Elite
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.