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

A.J. Panchenko Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1985-05-09 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
2003-04 Danville Wings USHL 52 4 6 10 0.192 0.1225 0.1241 0.5763 0.5838
2004-05 Indiana Ice USHL 59 3 10 13 0.220 0.1403 0.1351 0.6602 0.6355
■ 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 St. Thomas D3 — SR 25 3 3 6 0.240
2007-08 St. Thomas D3 — JR 28 1 3 4 0.143
2006-07 St. Thomas D3 — SO 26 2 4 6 0.231
2005-06 St. Thomas D3 — FR 6 0 0 0 0.000

NCAAe Rankings

#8537
Defenseman overall
#1100
Defenseman born in 1985
#3606
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Dan Molenaar
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Nick
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Army (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
James Roll
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Nick Neville
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.58 PPG
→ Denver (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Johnny Hrabovsky
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Air Force (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Sebastian Panetta
SUNY Geneseo · 2004-05
0.615 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Andrew Morris
Elmira · 2000-01
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Tyler Voigt
Tufts · 2010-11
0.960 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.