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

Ricky Kramer Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1994-12-06 Country: USA
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
2014-15 East Coast Wizards EHL 43 7 24 31 0.721 0.1547 0.1507 0.3530 0.3438
■ 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
2018-19 Fitchburg State D3 MASCAC SR 26 11 15 26 1.000
2017-18 Fitchburg State D3 MASCAC JR 28 9 16 25 0.893
2016-17 Fitchburg State D3 MASCAC SO 27 5 9 14 0.518
2015-16 Fitchburg State D3 MASCAC FR 27 3 17 20 0.741
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.14
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.74
2015-16 · Fitchburg State
+420.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#6779
Defenseman overall
#1083
Defenseman born in 1994
#435
in EHL

D1 Comparables

Garret Peterson
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.35 PPG
→ Army (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.19 No data
NCAAe PPG
Taki Pantziris
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Brown
0.16 No data
NCAAe PPG
Nolan Valleau
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.49 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

David MacGregor
UMass Boston · 2014-15
0.419 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Matt Hanewall
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2017-18
0.864 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Matt Whitehead
SUNY Oswego · 2004-05
0.333 Developing
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.