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

Raymond Fleming Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1998-12-15 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 Wisconsin Rapids Riverkings USPHL-Premier 44 7 15 22 0.500 0.0673 0.0682 0.1702 0.1724
2018-19 Wisconsin Rapids Riverkings USPHL-Premier 44 10 24 34 0.773 0.1040 0.0998 0.2630 0.2524
■ 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 St. Olaf D3 MIAC SR 5 0 0 0 0.000
2021-22 St. Olaf D3 MIAC JR 21 0 0 0 0.000
2020-21 St. Olaf D3 MIAC SO 2 1 0 1 0.500
2019-20 St. Olaf D3 MIAC FR 6 0 0 0 0.000

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

40%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
8%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#13923
Defenseman overall
#1898
Defenseman born in 1998
#2210
in USPHL-Premier

D1 Comparables

Garret Peterson
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.35 PPG
→ Army (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Kyle McKenzie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.14 PPG
→ Providence (0.15 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Taki Pantziris
OHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Brown
0.16 No data
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.19 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Steven Sorensen
St. Thomas · 2011-12
0.357 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Alex Rowella
Manhattanville · 2016-17
0.323 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Mike Dockry
St. Thomas · 2012-13
0.579 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.