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

Connor Lind Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1999-05-30 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
2018-19 South Shore Kings NCDC 46 4 2 6 0.130 0.0301 0.0298 0.1054 0.1042
2019-20 — NCDC 51 6 18 24 0.471 0.1088 0.1088 0.3805 0.3805
■ 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 New England D1 — FR 4 1 3 4 1.000
2020-21 New England D3 — FR 4 1 3 4 1.000
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.03
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.00
2020-21 · New England
+3458.7% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

2%
NCAA D2/D3
5%
Club / ACHA
57%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#7644
Defenseman overall
#1624
Defenseman born in 1999
#1039
in NCDC

D1 Comparables

James Roll
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Cameron McDonald
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.11 PPG
→ Providence (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.05 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Dan Molenaar
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Aleksi Rossi
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ Brown
0.08 No data
NCAAe PPG
Johnny Hrabovsky
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Air Force (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Tim Faulkner
Aurora · 2015-16
0.684 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Tyler Lapshanski
Wentworth · 2016-17
0.188 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Tyler Atkins
Castleton · 2006-07
0.375 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.