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

Connor Lenaghan Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1998-08-26 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 Potomac Patriots USPHL-Elite 38 3 0 3 0.079 0.0139 0.0153 0.0181 0.0200
2016-17 Potomac Patriots USPHL-Elite 24 7 11 18 0.750 0.1318 0.1377 0.1718 0.1795
2017-18 Philadelphia Jr. Flyers EHL 44 5 5 10 0.227 0.0800 0.0812 0.1114 0.1131
■ 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
2020-21 Becker D3 — JR 8 0 0 0 0.000
2019-20 Becker D3 — SO 21 0 0 0 0.000
2018-19 Becker D3 — FR 8 0 0 0 0.000

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

8%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
82%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#50652
Forward overall
#2777
Forward born in 1998

D1 Comparables

Conor Andrle
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Army (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Average
NCAAe PPG
Josh Erickson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ben Greiner
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average
NCAAe PPG
Zach Saar
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Penn State (0.33 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Spezia
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Mack Ohnsted
Augsburg · 2010-11
0.400 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Ben Beasley
Canton · 2013-14
0.364 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Samuel De Mauro
SUNY Potsdam · 2021-22
0.000 No data
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.