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

Cory King Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-06-03 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
2015-16 New Hampshire Jr. Monarchs EHL 33 5 10 15 0.455 0.0665 0.0668 0.2228 0.2238
■ 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 Chatham D3 UCHC SR 13 2 5 7 0.538
2019-20 Chatham D3 UCHC JR 23 3 11 14 0.609
2018-19 Chatham D3 UCHC SO 25 6 7 13 0.520
2017-18 Chatham D3 UCHC FR 23 3 4 7 0.304
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.06
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.30
2017-18 · Chatham
+432.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#34849
Forward overall
#1496
Forward born in 1996
#1264
in EHL

D1 Comparables

Tyler Spezia
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Matt Pohlkamp
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average
NCAAe PPG
Matthew Hansen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.25 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Zach Saar
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Penn State (0.33 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ben Greiner
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Cody Kostecki
Concordia (WI) · 2010-11
0.700 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Pavel Mikhasenok
Wisconsin-Superior · 2015-16
0.154 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Jerad Tafoya
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2012-13
0.714 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.