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

Cameron Granger Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1989-01-05 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
2007-08 Lindsay Muskies OJHL 49 14 17 31 0.633 0.1551 0.1538 0.4356 0.4319
2008-09 Lindsay Muskies OJHL 48 15 23 38 0.792 0.1940 0.1824 0.5451 0.5126
2009-10 Lindsay Muskies OJHL 50 16 27 43 0.860 0.2108 0.1872 0.5921 0.5257
■ 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
2010-11 Castleton D3 LittleEast — 10 2 1 3 0.300
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.30
2010-11 · Castleton
+89.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#23225
Forward overall
#779
Forward born in 1989
#1015
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Will Suter
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ali Thomas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Yasin Cissé
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Boston University
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
Jordan Nelson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.59 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Davey Middleton
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Brown (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Matt Hanewall
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2018-19
0.864 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Connor Bechtel
Salve Regina · 2015-16
0.455 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Keegan Bruce
St. Scholastica · 2011-12
0.400 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.