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

Kevin Van Bokkelen Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1997-02-09 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
2016-17 Wisconsin Rapids Riverkings USPHL-Elite 41 24 37 61 1.488 0.1784 0.1727 0.3416 0.3307
■ 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
2020-21 Lebanon Valley D3 MAC SR 7 0 2 2 0.286
2019-20 Lebanon Valley D3 MAC JR 24 0 4 4 0.167
2018-19 Lebanon Valley D3 MAC SO 12 3 0 3 0.250
2017-18 Lebanon Valley D3 MAC FR 20 7 4 11 0.550
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.15
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.55
2017-18 · Lebanon Valley
+272.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#23139
Forward overall
#996
Forward born in 1997
#29
in USPHL-Elite

D1 Comparables

Tayler Munson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Dau
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Air Force (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Alexander Dahl
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Nick DeCenzo
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Army (0.32 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Stanislav Dzakhov
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Niagara (0.44 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Devin Panzeca
SUNY Potsdam · 2016-17
0.667 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Matt Robertson
Suffolk · 2007-08
0.400 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Keegan Bruce
St. Scholastica · 2010-11
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.