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

Nick Davis Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1986-06-05 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
2002-03 Oakville Blades OJHL 42 4 7 11 0.262 0.0787 0.0858 0.1793 0.1954
2003-04 Oakville Blades OJHL 38 8 5 13 0.342 0.1028 0.1074 0.2342 0.2447
■ 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
2009-10 Suffolk D3 — SR 26 2 7 9 0.346
2008-09 Suffolk D3 — JR 25 3 6 9 0.360
2007-08 Suffolk D3 — SO 27 4 10 14 0.518
2006-07 Suffolk D3 — FR 24 4 15 19 0.792
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.08
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.79
2006-07 · Suffolk
+836.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#48220
Forward overall
#1540
Forward born in 1986
#4171
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Matt Mendelson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ Penn State (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Zach Evancho
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Army (0.62 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Max Humitz
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.11 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.56 D1 FR PPG)
0.07 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Dawson Cook
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Nick Hutchison
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Canisius (0.65 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Shane Cavalieri
SUNY Brockport · 2008-09
0.609 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Thomas Sumi
Elmira · 2009-10
0.458 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Sam Fuss
Wilkes · 2014-15
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.