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

Rick Lynch Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1985-09-22 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
2001-02 Buffalo Lightning OJHL 43 6 15 21 0.488 0.1197 0.1312 0.3363 0.3686
2002-03 Buffalo Lightning OJHL 43 2 30 32 0.744 0.1824 0.1924 0.5124 0.5405
■ 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
2006-07 Elmira D3 UCHC SR 26 1 12 13 0.500
2005-06 Elmira D3 UCHC JR 6 1 3 4 0.667
2004-05 Elmira D3 UCHC SO 23 7 8 15 0.652
2003-04 Elmira D3 UCHC FR 21 2 4 6 0.286
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.29
2003-04 · Elmira
+80.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#7361
Defenseman overall
#916
Defenseman born in 1985
#1539
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Keaton Thompson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Morrison
WHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Northland
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG
Phil Beaulieu
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Northern Michigan (0.42 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
R.J. Gicewicz
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Corey Schueneman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.37 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Nicholas Vassos
Bowdoin · 2007-08
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Mac Balson
Buffalo State · 2008-09
0.560 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Marc Rubino
Lake Forest · 2007-08
0.913 Strong
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.