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

Ben Kramer Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1991-02-03 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
2010-11 — USHL 14 0 1 1 0.071 0.0455 0.0426 0.2140 0.2001
2011-12 Springfield Jr. Blues NAHL 50 7 14 21 0.420 0.1559 0.1441 0.4447 0.4110
■ 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
2014-15 Buffalo State D3 SUNYAC JR 20 0 10 10 0.500
2013-14 Buffalo State D3 SUNYAC SO 27 5 5 10 0.370
2012-13 Buffalo State D3 SUNYAC FR 27 0 10 10 0.370
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.10
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.37
2012-13 · Buffalo State
+279.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#10867
Defenseman overall
#1374
Defenseman born in 1991

D1 Comparables

Michael Holland
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ RIT (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Carter Foguth
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.05 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Marc-Antoine Carrier
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Drew Brevig
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.64 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Dominic Racobaldo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Thomas Williams
St. Thomas · 2009-10
0.593 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Matt Saler
St. Scholastica · 2004-05
0.518 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Adam Kudynski
Lebanon Valley · 2004-05
0.909 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.