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

John Gordon Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1985-11-27 Country: Canada
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
2001-02 Lindsay Muskies OJHL 43 6 2 8 0.186 0.0456 0.0504 0.1273 0.1407
2002-03 Lindsay Muskies OJHL 45 7 13 20 0.444 0.1089 0.1159 0.3042 0.3236
■ 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
2006-07 Hamilton D3 — SR 19 4 11 15 0.789
2005-06 Hamilton D3 — JR 20 5 12 17 0.850
2004-05 Hamilton D3 — SO 24 6 20 26 1.083
2003-04 Hamilton D3 — FR 21 4 5 9 0.429
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.08
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.43
2003-04 · Hamilton
+406.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#16718
Defenseman overall
#1426
Defenseman born in 1985
#3333
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Kale Bennett
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.07 PPG
→ Western Michigan
0.05 No data
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Morrison
WHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Northland
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG
R.J. Gicewicz
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Jake Linhart
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.12 PPG
→ Wisconsin (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Anthony Walsh
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Yale (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.05 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Patrick O'Sullivan
UMass Boston · 2001-02
0.238 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Jordan So
Trinity · 2006-07
0.435 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Brandon Laidlaw
Utica · 2001-02
0.762 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.