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

Tony Cameranesi Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1993-08-12 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
2011-12 Waterloo Black Hawks USHL 55 18 24 42 0.764 0.4504 0.4570 2.2497 2.2826
■ 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
2015-16 Minnesota Duluth D1 NCHC SR 38 11 28 39 1.026
2014-15 Minnesota Duluth D1 NCHC JR 40 9 21 30 0.750
2013-14 Minnesota Duluth D1 NCHC — 36 7 14 21 0.583
2012-13 Minnesota Duluth D1 WCHA-orig — 38 14 20 34 0.895
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.39
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.89
2012-13 · Minnesota Duluth
+128.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#6257
Forward overall
#293
Forward born in 1993
#432
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Luke Johnson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.81 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.48 Average
NCAAe PPG
Justin Greenberg
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.95 PPG
→ Miami (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jason Salvaggio
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.65 PPG
→ New Hampshire (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.39 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tony Calderone
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.69 PPG
→ Michigan (0.32 D1 FR PPG)
0.41 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Grant Besse
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Wisconsin (0.39 D1 FR PPG)
0.34 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Tyler Barrow
Wilkes · 2016-17
1.385 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Ryan Reifler
Elmira · 2016-17
1.067 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Lucas Signoretti
Buffalo State · 2022-23
1.120 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.