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

Joseph Grabowski Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1994-09-01 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
2012-13 Amarillo Bulls NAHL 48 2 16 18 0.375 0.1392 0.1466 0.3971 0.4181
2013-14 Amarillo Bulls NAHL 59 8 26 34 0.576 0.2140 0.2146 0.6102 0.6118
■ 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
2017-18 Princeton D1 ECAC SR 35 0 9 9 0.257
2016-17 Princeton D1 ECAC JR 31 2 5 7 0.226
2015-16 Princeton D1 ECAC SO 31 1 7 8 0.258
2014-15 Princeton D1 ECAC FR 29 1 3 4 0.138
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.18
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.14
2014-15 · Princeton
-22.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#4944
Defenseman overall
#899
Defenseman born in 1994
#2297
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Tommy Davis
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Princeton (0.29 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Christian Neumann
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ UConn (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Mike McKee
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Neal Goff
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Nate Repensky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ Yale (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Elite D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Malcolm Arseneau
Fredonia · 2017-18
0.818 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Caleb Suderman
Concordia · 2008-09
0.630 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Maxwell Reavis
UMass Boston · 2010-11
1.000 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.