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

Lee Swallow Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1984-06-21 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
2002-03 King Rebellion OJHL 43 11 19 30 0.698 0.1949 0.1934 0.4815 0.4777
2003-04 — OJHL 43 12 20 32 0.744 0.2079 0.1969 0.5136 0.4865
■ 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
2007-08 Milwaukee School of Engineering D3 — SR 28 9 31 40 1.429
2006-07 Milwaukee School of Engineering D3 — JR 27 16 23 39 1.444
2005-06 Milwaukee School of Engineering D3 — SO 27 16 29 45 1.667
2004-05 Milwaukee School of Engineering D3 — FR 28 15 19 34 1.214
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.17
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.21
2004-05 · Milwaukee School of Engineering
+625.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#19895
Forward overall
#674
Forward born in 1984
#1474
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Zach Saar
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Penn State (0.33 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Matt Pohlkamp
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average
NCAAe PPG
Robin Höglund
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Minnesota
0.19 No data
NCAAe PPG
Alfred Larsson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.20 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Spezia
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.26 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Jarod Blackowiak
Augsburg · 2018-19
0.423 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Andrew Derton
St. Norbert · 2001-02
0.633 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Brett Ouderkirk
Norwich · 2016-17
0.966 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.