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

Connor Krukowski Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1988-12-18 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
2006-07 Weyburn Red Wings SJHL 55 2 10 12 0.218 0.0559 0.0596 0.1617 0.1725
2007-08 Weyburn Red Wings SJHL 56 1 14 15 0.268 0.0686 0.0696 0.1985 0.2014
2008-09 Nanaimo Clippers BCHL 59 2 20 22 0.373 0.1437 0.1375 0.5434 0.5199
■ 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
2009-10 Manhattanville D3 — FR 24 2 4 6 0.250
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.10
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.25
2009-10 · Manhattanville
+139.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#16327
Defenseman overall
#1509
Defenseman born in 1988

D1 Comparables

Taki Pantziris
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Brown
0.15 No data
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG
Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Kyle McKenzie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.14 PPG
→ Providence (0.15 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Nolan Valleau
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Bowling Green
0.22 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Ben Luedtke
Concordia · 2021-22
0.440 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Jeremy Routh
St. Michael's College · 2018-19
0.955 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Logan Geisness
Concordia (WI) · 2018-19
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.