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

Dominic Lutz Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-01-19 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 Amarillo Wranglers NAHL 54 8 10 18 0.333 0.1225 0.1249 0.3518 0.3586
2015-16 Amarillo Wranglers NAHL 58 26 24 50 0.862 0.3167 0.3088 0.9099 0.8872
■ 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 Ferris State D1 WCHA SR 34 1 1 2 0.059
2018-19 Ferris State D1 WCHA JR 25 3 3 6 0.240
2017-18 Ferris State D1 WCHA SO 19 2 0 2 0.105
2016-17 Ferris State D1 WCHA FR 16 1 1 2 0.125
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.20
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.12
2016-17 · Ferris State
-37.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#20342
Forward overall
#803
Forward born in 1996
#1354
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Ryan Siiro
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Princeton (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Average
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Joseph-Matthew Manno
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.63 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.34 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.21 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Adam Kudynski
Lebanon Valley · 2003-04
0.909 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Nicholas Bondra
Amherst · 2016-17
0.714 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Arlen Marshall
Manhattanville · 2004-05
0.840 Strong
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.