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

Cameron Lee Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1997-02-18 Country: Canada
Signed Professionally
Amur Khabarovsk · KHL

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
2014-15 Lincoln Stars USHL 53 6 9 15 0.283 0.1669 0.1738 0.8500 0.8853
2015-16 Green Bay Gamblers USHL 60 6 33 39 0.650 0.3834 0.3815 1.9522 1.9426
2022-23 Amur Khabarovsk KHL 53 7 13 20 0.377 0.9435 0.9799 5.2001 5.4007
2023-24 Amur Khabarovsk KHL 37 2 11 13 0.351 0.8785 0.8632 4.8418 4.7576
2024-25 Amur Khabarovsk KHL 57 2 15 17 0.298 0.7455 0.7105 4.1088 3.9159
■ 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
2019-20 Western Michigan D1 NCHC — 26 3 18 21 0.808
2018-19 Western Michigan D1 NCHC — 37 7 19 26 0.703
2017-18 Western Michigan D1 NCHC — 36 6 18 24 0.667
2016-17 Western Michigan D1 NCHC — 38 2 12 14 0.368
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.28
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.37
2016-17 · Western Michigan
+30.8% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

18%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
82%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#388
Defenseman overall
#120
Defenseman born in 1997

D2/3 Comparables

Neil Trimm
Neumann · 2003-04
1.800 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Arkhip Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Brandon Osmundson
Utica · 2018-19
1.448 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.