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

Samir Abouelhana Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1998-04-02 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
2017-18 Philadelphia Revolution EHL 45 19 40 59 1.311 0.3029 0.3014 0.6415 0.6384
2018-19 Philadelphia Revolution EHL 44 29 64 93 2.114 0.4882 0.4614 1.0342 0.9773
■ 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
2019-20 SUNY Plattsburgh D3 SUNYAC FR 9 1 0 1 0.111
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.34
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.11
2019-20 · SUNY Plattsburgh
-67.3% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

25%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
0%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#3761
Forward overall
#187
Forward born in 1998
#3
in EHL

D1 Comparables

Shane Sooth
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.95 PPG
→ Northern Michigan (0.45 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Average
NCAAe PPG
Todd Skirving
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.80 PPG
→ RIT (0.65 D1 FR PPG)
0.43 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Eric Scheid
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.94 PPG
→ Alaska Anchorage (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Average
NCAAe PPG
Carlos Amestoy
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.75 PPG
→ Maine
0.39 No data
NCAAe PPG
David Goodwin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.67 PPG
→ Penn State (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

David Coyle
Castleton · 2024-25
0.731 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Matt Kroska
St. Olaf · 2013-14
0.375 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Cam Bergeman
University of New England · 2023-24
0.783 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.