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

Craig Kennedy Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: ⚠ Missing — add in admin 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
2000-01 Kanata Valley Lasers CCHL 39 19 34 53 1.359 0.2948 0.2948 1.0515 1.0515
■ 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
2003-04 Hamilton D3 NESCAC JR 1 0 0 0 0.000
2002-03 Hamilton D3 NESCAC SO 26 8 10 18 0.692
2001-02 Hamilton D3 NESCAC FR 17 12 11 23 1.353
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.25
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.35
2001-02 · Hamilton
+436.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#7840
Forward overall
#40
in CCHL

D1 Comparables

Thomas Ebbing
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Michigan State (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Kyle Osterberg
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.77 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Mitch Hults
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Average
NCAAe PPG
Jason Salvaggio
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.65 PPG
→ New Hampshire (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.39 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jake Horton
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Harvard (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Pat Egan
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2012-13
1.080 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Parker Mismash
St. Scholastica · 2014-15
0.615 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Simon Boyko
Aurora · 2016-17
1.037 Elite
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.