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

Justin Geary Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1998-09-16 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
2017-18 Northern Cyclones NCDC 11 1 0 1 0.091 0.0371 0.0375 0.0731 0.0739
■ 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
2022-23 SUNY Potsdam D3 SUNYAC SR 18 2 5 7 0.389
2021-22 SUNY Potsdam D3 SUNYAC SR 17 2 3 5 0.294
2019-20 Potsdam D1 — SO 4 0 0 0 0.000
2019-20 SUNY Potsdam D3 SUNYAC — 4 0 0 0 0.000
2018-19 Wilkes D1 MAC FR 4 0 0 0 0.000
2018-19 Wilkes D3 MAC — 4 0 0 0 0.000

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

2%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
90%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#3345
Defenseman overall
#775
Defenseman born in 1998

D1 Comparables

Joe Schuldt
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Michigan Tech
0.05 No data
NCAAe PPG
Neal Goff
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Mike Preston
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.07 PPG
→ Army (0.16 D1 FR PPG)
0.04 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Christian Neumann
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ UConn (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Cliff Watson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Lonnie Clary
Marian · 2013-14
0.115 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Peter Fylling
St. Norbert · 2004-05
0.467 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Jake Vaughan
Connecticut College · 2018-19
0.800 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.