← New Search ↗ Social Card

Jeff Petry Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1987-12-09 Country: USA
2006 · Round 2, Pick #45  ·  Edmonton Oilers Edmonton Oilers
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
2005-06 USHL 48 1 14 15 0.312 0.1843 0.1916 0.9386 0.9756
2006-07 USHL 55 18 27 45 0.818 0.4827 0.4769 2.4574 2.4279
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
2009-10 Michigan State D1 BigTen JR 38 4 25 29 0.763
2008-09 Michigan State D1 BigTen SO 38 2 12 14 0.368
2007-08 Michigan State D1 BigTen FR 42 3 21 24 0.571
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.34
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.57
2007-08 · Michigan State
+66.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#2093
Defenseman overall
#371
Defenseman born in 1987
#929
in USHL

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.65 PPG
→ Ferris State (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.37 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.62 PPG
→ New Hampshire (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.36 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
WHL · 2012-13 · 0.74 PPG
→ Hamline (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Average D
NCAAe PPG
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.55 PPG
→ Denver (0.42 D1 FR PPG)
0.39 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.51 D1 FR PPG)
0.43 Elite D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Elmira · 2014-15
0.800 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Southern New Hampshire · 2016-17
0.593 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Endicott · 2015-16
1.310 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.