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

Greg Kreese Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: ⚠ Missing — add in admin Country: Canada
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
2000-01 Merritt Centennials BCHL 1 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2001-02 — AJHL 15 5 1 6 0.400 0.1342 0.1342 0.3707 0.3707
2002-03 Olds Grizzlys AJHL 23 9 10 19 0.826 0.2771 0.2771 0.7656 0.7656
■ 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
2004-05 Marian D3 — JR 3 0 0 0 0.000
2002-03 Marian D3 — FR 11 2 6 8 0.727
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.11
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.73
2002-03 · Marian
+533.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#25745
Forward overall

D1 Comparables

Thomas Ebbing
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Michigan State (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Kyle Osterberg
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.77 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Mitch Hults
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Average
NCAAe PPG
Jake Horton
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Harvard (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Zach Aston-Reese
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.54 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Trever Hertz
Utica · 2007-08
0.808 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Kevin Shand
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2013-14
0.412 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Carter Roo
Wisconsin-Stevens Point · 2014-15
0.593 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.