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

Brody Mortensen Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2004-09-07 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
2022-23 Canmore Eagles AJHL 58 2 13 15 0.259 0.0858 0.0892 0.2397 0.2491
2023-24 Canmore Eagles AJHL 57 12 22 34 0.597 0.1979 0.1963 0.5528 0.5484
■ 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
2025-26 Lindenwood D1 CCHA SO 22 2 2 4 0.182
2024-25 Lindenwood D1 CCHA — 24 3 2 5 0.208
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.14
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.21
2024-25 · Lindenwood
+43.8% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

38%
NCAA D1
5%
NCAA D2/D3
25%
Age-Out / Club
32%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#10477
Defenseman overall
#2242
Defenseman born in 2004
#1557
in AJHL

D1 Comparables

Tommy Davis
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Princeton (0.29 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Christian Neumann
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ UConn (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Neal Goff
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Mike McKee
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Joe Schuldt
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Michigan Tech
0.05 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Todd Koritzinsky
Wisconsin-Eau Claire · 2012-13
0.550 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Josh Keizer
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2009-10
1.069 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Cayden Cahill
Wisconsin-River Falls · 2015-16
0.862 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.