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

Josh Koepplinger Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1994-12-04 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
2013-14 Flint Jr. Generals NA3HL 36 9 5 14 0.389 0.0430 0.0432 0.1232 0.1237
■ 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 Lawrence D1 ECAC SR 25 10 14 24 0.960
2018-19 Lawrence D3 NCHA SR 25 10 14 24 0.960
2017-18 Lawrence D3 NCHA JR 26 17 13 30 1.154
2016-17 Lawrence D3 NCHA SO 25 10 12 22 0.880
2015-16 Lawrence D3 NCHA FR 26 10 5 15 0.577
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.04
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.58
2015-16 · Lawrence
+1459.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#48931
Forward overall
#2024
Forward born in 1994
#3128
in NA3HL

D1 Comparables

Sebastian Weberg
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Colgate
0.14 No data
NCAAe PPG
Canon Pieper
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.28 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.08 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Hynes
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.28 PPG
→ Union (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Austin Vieth
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tim Lappin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Brown (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Nathan Flynn
Augsburg · 2012-13
0.385 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Brad Herman
St. Norbert · 2005-06
0.357 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Ryan Burr
New England · 2014-15
0.615 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.