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

Nathan Krusko Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-01-29 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 Minnesota Magicians NAHL 58 12 19 31 0.534 0.1964 0.2005 0.5642 0.5759
2015-16 Omaha Lancers USHL 60 14 14 28 0.467 0.2753 0.2594 1.4017 1.3208
■ 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 Harvard D1 ECAC SR 31 3 3 6 0.194
2018-19 Harvard D1 ECAC JR 33 3 7 10 0.303
2017-18 Harvard D1 ECAC SO 33 3 17 20 0.606
2016-17 Harvard D1 ECAC FR 35 9 8 17 0.486
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.20
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.49
2016-17 · Harvard
+140.6% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#20583
Forward overall
#816
Forward born in 1996

D1 Comparables

Ryan Siiro
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Princeton (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Average
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.21 No data
NCAAe PPG
Alexander Dahl
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Eric Melso
SUNY Morrisville · 2017-18
0.750 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Maxwell Donohoe
Neumann · 2022-23
1.500 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Erik Caron
St. Michael's College · 2003-04
1.280 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.