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

Patrick Koudys Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1992-11-15 Country: Canada
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
2009-10 Burlington Cougars OJHL 50 5 28 33 0.660 0.1844 0.1993 0.4555 0.4923
2012-13 Muskegon Lumberjacks USHL 64 1 14 15 0.234 0.1493 0.1380 0.7024 0.6493
■ 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 Penn State D1 BigTen SR 36 1 7 8 0.222
2013-14 Penn State D1 BigTen JR 36 2 6 8 0.222
2011-12 RPI D1 — SO 27 1 1 2 0.074
2010-11 RPI D1 — FR 31 1 2 3 0.097
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.19
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.10
2010-11 · RPI
-48.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#6122
Defenseman overall
#1103
Defenseman born in 1992

D1 Comparables

Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.19 No data
NCAAe PPG
Garret Peterson
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.35 PPG
→ Army (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Nolan Valleau
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.49 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Dylan Zink
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.62 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Taki Pantziris
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Brown
0.16 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Dan Law
Manhattanville · 2001-02
0.731 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Lindsay Walker
Tufts · 2006-07
0.667 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Ryan Markell
SUNY Cortland · 2006-07
0.792 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.