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

Shane Kuzmeski Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1996-07-04 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 Wichita Falls Wildcats NAHL 55 5 18 23 0.418 0.1536 0.1601 0.4414 0.4600
2015-16 — USHL 5 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
■ 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 Clarkson D1 ECAC SR 26 1 5 6 0.231
2018-19 Clarkson D1 ECAC JR 27 1 4 5 0.185
2017-18 Clarkson D1 ECAC SO 8 0 0 0 0.000
2016-17 Clarkson D1 ECAC FR 21 0 0 0 0.000

NCAAe Rankings

#5717
Defenseman overall
#1020
Defenseman born in 1996

D1 Comparables

Cutler Martin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Michigan (0.47 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Doyle Somerby
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Boston University (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Chris Leibinger
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.13 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Jimmy Mazza
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Canisius (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Jake Bischoff
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Zachary Vickerman
Southern New Hampshire · 2022-23
0.739 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Jarod Blackowiak
Augsburg · 2017-18
0.423 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Phil Parker
Franklin Pierce · 2021-22
0.308 Developing
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.