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

Garret Peterson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1992-12-17 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
2011-12 St. Louis Bandits NAHL 51 3 13 16 0.314 0.1165 0.1186 0.3321 0.3380
2012-13 Amarillo Bulls NAHL 51 3 15 18 0.353 0.1310 0.1267 0.3737 0.3616
■ 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
2016-17 Army D1 AHA SR 8 0 1 1 0.125
2015-16 Army D1 AHA JR 10 0 0 0 0.000
2014-15 Army D1 AHA SO 7 0 1 1 0.143
2013-14 Army D1 AHA FR 29 1 1 2 0.069
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.12
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.07
2013-14 · Army
-40.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#9302
Defenseman overall
#1370
Defenseman born in 1992
#3978
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Taki Pantziris
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Brown
0.16 No data
NCAAe PPG
Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.19 No data
NCAAe PPG
Kyle McKenzie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.14 PPG
→ Providence (0.15 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Joseph Fiala
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Troy MacTavish
Wisconsin-Superior · 2017-18
0.538 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Max Doner
Wisconsin-River Falls · 2016-17
0.250 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
George Curry
Canton · 2011-12
0.467 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.