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

Kaleb Pitman Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2004-10-26 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
2023-24 Rock Springs Miners NCDC 46 12 12 24 0.522 0.2127 0.2159 0.4193 0.4256
2024-25 — NCDC 51 24 16 40 0.784 0.3198 0.3104 0.6304 0.6119
■ 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
2025-26 Concordia D3 MIAC FR 10 3 1 4 0.400
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.23
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.40
2025-26 · Concordia
+71.5% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

50%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
0%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#8632
Forward overall
#311
Forward born in 2004
#210
in NCDC

D1 Comparables

Emil Romig
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.00 PPG
→ Denver (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jonathan Davis
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.03 PPG
→ Nebraska Omaha (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.36 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Sean Gaffney
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.14 PPG
→ UConn (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.40 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Joseph-Matthew Manno
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.63 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.34 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

David McNab
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2004-05
0.750 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Jordan Singer
Wisconsin-Eau Claire · 2008-09
0.682 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Cody Smith
Norwich · 2008-09
0.500 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.