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

Nathan Palumbo Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2003-05-12 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
2022-23 New Hampshire Jr. Monarchs NCDC 25 0 3 3 0.120 0.0277 0.0277 0.0970 0.0969
■ 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
2025-26 Assumption D2 NE10 SR 8 0 1 1 0.125
2024-25 Assumption D2 NE10 JR 20 0 2 2 0.100
2023-24 Assumption D2 NE10 SO 26 4 2 6 0.231
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.02
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.23
2023-24 · Assumption
+873.8% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

8%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
42%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#37674
Forward overall
#2336
Forward born in 2003
#1272
in NCDC

D1 Comparables

Ben Greiner
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average
NCAAe PPG
William Messa
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Northeastern
0.12 No data
NCAAe PPG
Matthew Hansen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.25 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ben Ostlie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Notre Dame
0.13 No data
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Spezia
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Austin Frank
Lawrence · 2012-13
0.222 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Wyatt Teubert
Nichols · 2023-24
0.091 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Hayden Smith
Tufts · 2015-16
0.227 Developing
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.