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

Joe Masonius Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1997-02-17 Country: USA
2016 · Round 6, Pick #181  ·  Pittsburgh Penguins Pittsburgh Penguins
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
2013-14 — NTDP-U18 38 0 8 8 0.210 0.1565 0.1581 0.7855 0.7936
2014-15 — NTDP-U18 65 6 23 29 0.446 0.3317 0.3191 1.6650 1.6016
■ 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
2017-18 UConn D1 HockeyEast JR 28 2 14 16 0.571
2016-17 UConn D1 HockeyEast SO 34 2 11 13 0.382
2015-16 UConn D1 HockeyEast FR 34 6 15 21 0.618
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.24
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.62
2015-16 · UConn
+156.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#4964
Defenseman overall
#1036
Defenseman born in 1997

D1 Comparables

Clark Kuster
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ St. Cloud State
0.29 No data
NCAAe PPG
Will Butcher
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Denver (0.42 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Luke Voltin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Northern Michigan (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Jack Stander
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Canisius (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Roy
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.30 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Chris Atkinson
Curry · 2005-06
0.962 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
James Tatro
Salem State · 2021-22
1.269 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Dom Murphy
University of New England · 2021-22
0.826 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.