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

Camden Carver Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2004-09-15 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
2023-24 Mercer Chiefs NCDC 42 1 12 13 0.309 0.0715 0.0722 0.2494 0.2518
2024-25 Mercer Chiefs NCDC 45 2 7 9 0.200 0.0462 0.0446 0.1612 0.1556
■ 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 Western Connecticut D3 LittleEast FR 23 1 2 3 0.130
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.05
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.13
2025-26 · Western Connecticut
+148.4% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

20%
NCAA D2/D3
5%
Club / ACHA
0%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#12182
Defenseman overall
#2503
Defenseman born in 2004

D1 Comparables

William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Kirk
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Dartmouth
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Carlson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Tyler Mros
Bethel · 2015-16
0.280 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Ram Sidhu
SUNY Geneseo · 2003-04
0.278 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Cole Poliziani
Trinity · 2017-18
0.227 Developing
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.