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

Peter Karavos Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1995-12-17 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
2015-16 Minnesota Magicians NAHL 12 1 4 5 0.417 0.1547 0.1501 0.4412 0.4282
■ 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
2020-21 Wisconsin-River Falls D3 BigTen SR 10 0 8 8 0.800
2019-20 Wisconsin-River Falls D3 BigTen JR 29 3 14 17 0.586
2018-19 Wisconsin-River Falls D3 BigTen SO 26 4 9 13 0.500
2017-18 Wisconsin-River Falls D3 BigTen FR 29 8 9 17 0.586
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.13
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.59
2017-18 · Wisconsin-River Falls
+356.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#26834
Forward overall
#1099
Forward born in 1995
#3057
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Nick DeCenzo
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Army (0.32 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
Ian Miller
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Evan Ritt
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.67 PPG
→ Denver
0.24 No data
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Kevin Galan
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2004-05
0.839 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Jake Roeper
Lawrence · 2013-14
1.500 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Dan Swanson
Concordia · 2005-06
0.000 No data
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.