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

Jonathan Gehrt Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1992-03-24 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
2010-11 Austin Bruins NAHL 43 3 8 11 0.256 0.0940 0.0969 0.2704 0.2786
2011-12 Austin Bruins NAHL 52 7 25 32 0.615 0.2261 0.2218 0.6504 0.6381
■ 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
2015-16 Hamline D3 MIAC — 11 0 3 3 0.273
2014-15 Hamline D3 MIAC — 29 2 8 10 0.345
2013-14 Army D1 AHA — 30 1 3 4 0.133
2012-13 Army D1 AHA — 33 3 6 9 0.273
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.27
2012-13 · Army
+68.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#7738
Defenseman overall
#1137
Defenseman born in 1992
#2792
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Victor Björkung
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Vinny Muto
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Niagara (0.51 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Jared Kolquist
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Connor Murphy
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.55 PPG
→ Cornell (0.20 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 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

Jack Johnson
Saint John's · 2017-18
0.957 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Joshua McCully
Westfield State · 2008-09
0.640 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Zach Felser
SUNY Cortland · 2013-14
0.462 Average
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.