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

Josh Peterson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1984-01-18 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 — NAHL 50 5 13 18 0.360 0.1279 0.1228 0.3780 0.3628
■ 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
2007-08 Lawrence D3 ECAC SR 27 6 20 26 0.963
2006-07 Lawrence D3 ECAC JR 27 3 12 15 0.556
2005-06 Lawrence D3 ECAC SO 26 4 13 17 0.654
2004-05 Lawrence D3 ECAC FR 25 8 11 19 0.760
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.12
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.76
2004-05 · Lawrence
+555.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#11382
Defenseman overall
#1085
Defenseman born in 1984
#3928
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Taki Pantziris
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Brown
0.15 No data
NCAAe PPG
Kyle McKenzie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.14 PPG
→ Providence (0.15 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Joseph Fiala
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Parker
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Fuller
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.11 PPG
→ Southern Maine (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.06 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Joel Wetmore
Utica · 2010-11
0.577 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Cory Anderson
Manhattanville · 2013-14
0.739 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Michael McChesney
St. Norbert · 2017-18
0.333 Developing
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.