← New Search ↗ Social Card

Dan Kelly Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1989-05-17 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
2004-05 Pembroke Lumber Kings CCHL 47 1 12 13 0.277 0.0600 0.0695 0.2141 0.2479
2005-06 Kitchener Rangers OHL 9 0 3 3 0.333 0.1928 0.2120 0.8541 0.9390
2006-07 Kitchener Rangers OHL 59 0 19 19 0.322 0.1863 0.1949 0.8251 0.8630
2007-08 Kitchener Rangers OHL 65 1 17 18 0.277 0.1602 0.1597 0.7096 0.7072
2008-09 Kitchener Rangers OHL 44 4 11 15 0.341 0.1972 0.1870 0.8736 0.8284
2009-10 Kitchener Rangers OHL 58 6 21 27 0.466 0.2693 0.2425 1.1928 1.0739
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
2017-18 Tufts D3 SR 25 1 4 5 0.200
2016-17 Tufts D3 JR 8 0 1 1 0.125
2015-16 Tufts D3 SO 18 2 2 4 0.222
2014-15 Tufts D3 FR 25 1 3 4 0.160
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.21
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.16
2014-15 · Tufts
-23.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#5472
Defenseman overall
#818
Defenseman born in 1989

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Elite D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Southern New Hampshire · 2017-18
0.462 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Wisconsin-Superior · 2004-05
0.967 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
SUNY Potsdam · 2008-09
0.818 Strong
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.