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

Luke Bafia Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1996-01-19 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
2013-14 Rio Grande Valley Killer Bees NAHL 49 1 5 6 0.122 0.0450 0.0482 0.1292 0.1385
2014-15 Green Bay Gamblers USHL 60 1 8 9 0.150 0.0885 0.0874 0.4505 0.4448
2015-16 Green Bay Gamblers USHL 53 1 13 14 0.264 0.1559 0.1467 0.7935 0.7466
■ 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 SR 36 1 10 11 0.306
2018-19 Western Michigan D1 NCHC JR 36 3 9 12 0.333
2017-18 Western Michigan D1 NCHC SO 36 1 15 16 0.444
2016-17 Western Michigan D1 NCHC FR 26 1 6 7 0.269
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.12
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.27
2016-17 · Western Michigan
+131.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#15002
Defenseman overall
#1968
Defenseman born in 1996

D1 Comparables

Taki Pantziris
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Brown
0.15 No data
NCAAe PPG
Joseph Fiala
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Parker
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Kyle McKenzie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.14 PPG
→ Providence (0.15 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Max Everson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Harvard (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

George Thurston
Southern New Hampshire · 2017-18
0.909 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Anthony Ruberto
Hamilton · 2008-09
0.440 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Timothy Weinstein
Trinity · 2016-17
3.000 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.