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

Chad Bazin Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1987-08-05 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
2006-07 Hawkesbury Hawks CCHL 55 5 15 20 0.364 0.1038 0.1012 0.2815 0.2745
2007-08 Hawkesbury Hawks CCHL 55 9 38 47 0.855 0.2439 0.2261 0.6615 0.6132
■ 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
2008-09 Utica D3 — FR 16 2 4 6 0.375
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.17
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.38
2008-09 · Utica
+125.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#4775
Defenseman overall
#868
Defenseman born in 1987
#687
in CCHL

D1 Comparables

Casey Nelson
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Benjamin Gallacher
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Jake Flynn
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ UConn (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Dylan Zink
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.62 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Tanner Karty
Wisconsin-Stevens Point · 2014-15
0.833 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Joe Watson
Utica · 2003-04
0.714 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Aaron Keaney
Neumann · 2008-09
0.765 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.