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

John Zimmerman Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1996-05-02 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
2014-15 Fairbanks Ice Dogs NAHL 34 1 5 6 0.176 0.0648 0.0670 — —
2015-16 Lone Star Brahmas NAHL 48 1 5 6 0.125 0.0459 0.0454 0.1319 0.1305
2016-17 Lone Star Brahmas NAHL 57 1 36 37 0.649 0.2385 0.2230 0.6851 0.6406
■ 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
2020-21 Army D1 AHA SR 21 1 13 14 0.667
2019-20 Army D1 AHA JR 32 2 17 19 0.594
2018-19 Army D1 AHA SO 17 0 5 5 0.294
2017-18 Army D1 AHA FR 27 0 12 12 0.444
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.14
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.44
2017-18 · Army
+209.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#10701
Defenseman overall
#1589
Defenseman born in 1996
#3747
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Marc-Antoine Carrier
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Dominic Racobaldo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Carlson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Michael Holland
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ RIT (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Remy Parker
Utica · 2018-19
0.588 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Tyler Gobel
Western Connecticut · 2024-25
0.600 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Devin Stuermer
Marian · 2011-12
1.385 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.