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

Phil Kemp Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1999-02-12 Country: USA
2017 · Round 7, Pick #208  ·  Edmonton Oilers Edmonton Oilers
Signed Professionally
Allsvenskan

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
2015-16 — NTDP-U18 58 1 11 12 0.207 0.1538 0.1560 0.7720 0.7830
2016-17 — NTDP-U18 64 5 8 13 0.203 0.1510 0.1457 0.7578 0.7314
2020-21 — Allsvenskan 32 3 7 10 0.312 0.7812 0.7812 2.9318 2.9318
■ 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 Yale D1 ECAC JR 32 3 8 11 0.344
2018-19 Yale D1 ECAC SO 30 3 5 8 0.267
2017-18 Yale D1 ECAC FR 26 3 5 8 0.308
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.14
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.31
2017-18 · Yale
+117.6% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Mark Auk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Josh Couturier
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.25 PPG
→ Boston College (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Steven Santini
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Boston College (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Alex Smith
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.47 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Roy
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.30 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Jeremy Olinyk
St. Norbert · 2009-10
0.727 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Tyler Schremp
Elmira · 2001-02
0.818 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Tim Kielich
SUNY Brockport · 2011-12
1.192 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.