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

Adam Smith Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1996-11-06 Country: Canada
2016 · Round 7, Pick #198  ·  Nashville Predators Nashville Predators
Signed Professionally
Eisbären Berlin · DEL

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
2013-14 Milton Menace OJHL 50 3 12 15 0.300 0.0735 0.0800 0.2065 0.2247
2014-15 Milton Menace OJHL 30 2 7 9 0.300 0.0735 0.0762 0.2065 0.2140
2015-16 Milton Menace OJHL 32 5 9 14 0.438 0.1072 0.1052 0.3012 0.2955
2024-25 Eisbären Berlin DEL 11 1 4 5 0.455 1.1362 1.1722 3.8533 3.9755
■ 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
2018-19 Bowling Green D1 WCHA — 28 3 3 6 0.214
2017-18 Bowling Green D1 WCHA — 40 1 3 4 0.100
2016-17 Bowling Green D1 WCHA — 28 1 4 5 0.179
2015-16 Bowling Green D1 WCHA — 22 1 2 3 0.136
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.07
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.14
2015-16 · Bowling Green
+85.8% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

🏒 NHL / Pro Track — production profile is consistent with players who bypassed or minimized college hockey
0%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
100%
NHL / Pro

NCAAe Rankings

#3488
Defenseman overall
#664
Defenseman born in 1996

D2/3 Comparables

Neil Trimm
Neumann · 2003-04
1.800 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Arkhip Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Brandon Osmundson
Utica · 2018-19
1.448 Elite
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.