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

Jordan Skinner Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1985-08-20 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
2005-06 King Rebellion OJHL 43 6 19 25 0.581 0.1425 0.1308 0.3980 0.3654
■ 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 Southern Maine D3 HockeyEast FR 25 3 4 7 0.280
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.12
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.28
2006-07 · Southern Maine
+126.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#8401
Defenseman overall
#988
Defenseman born in 1985
#1803
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Benjamin Gallacher
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Carlson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Dominic Racobaldo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Dennis Kubat
St. Scholastica · 2007-08
0.286 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Tim Crowley
SUNY Brockport · 2004-05
0.440 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Tyler Sifferlen
UMass Boston · 2015-16
0.444 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.