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

Lukas Craggs Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-05-16 Country: USA
Signed Professionally

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 Janesville Jets NAHL 2 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2014-15 Youngstown Phantoms USHL 46 5 9 14 0.304 0.1795 0.1801 0.9139 0.9171
2015-16 Youngstown Phantoms USHL 58 12 11 23 0.397 0.2340 0.2239 1.1911 1.1399
■ 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
2018-19 Bowling Green D1 WCHA JR 35 13 12 25 0.714
2017-18 Bowling Green D1 WCHA SO 40 10 9 19 0.475
2016-17 Bowling Green D1 WCHA FR 41 7 3 10 0.244
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.18
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.24
2016-17 · Bowling Green
+38.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Tanner Pond
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tommy Schutt
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Alfred Larsson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.20 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Matt Pohlkamp
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Average
NCAAe PPG
Luc Gerdes
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.80 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Austin Master
Stevenson · 2017-18
1.148 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Gavin Bloder
Fredonia · 2022-23
0.750 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Sean David
Canton · 2016-17
0.800 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.