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

Luke Krys Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2000-09-27 Country: USA
Signed Professionally

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
2018-19 Salisbury School NE-Prep 29 8 24 32 1.103 0.2186 0.2186 0.5027 0.5027
2020-21 — USHL 5 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
■ 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
2023-24 Providence D1 HockeyEast — 35 6 11 17 0.486
2022-23 Brown D1 ECAC — 30 2 14 16 0.533
2021-22 Brown D1 ECAC — 31 3 10 13 0.419
2019-20 Brown D1 ECAC FR 31 4 5 9 0.290
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.21
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.29
2019-20 · Brown
+40.6% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

0%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
90%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Michael Kapla
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.49 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Ruslan Pedan
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.34 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Gustav Olofsson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Kyle Mackey
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.16 PPG
→ Air Force (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Cutler Martin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Michigan (0.47 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Chandler Madry
Augsburg · 2013-14
0.966 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Logan Orem
Johnson & Wales · 2015-16
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Parker Wood
Endicott · 2012-13
0.875 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.