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

Nathan Cook 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
2001-02 Cornwall Colts CCHL 1 1 0 1 1.000 0.2854 0.2854 0.7741 0.7741
■ 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
2004-05 Babson D3 — JR 9 3 1 4 0.444
2003-04 Babson D3 — SO 22 3 8 11 0.500
2002-03 Babson D3 — FR 26 7 22 29 1.115
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.24
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.12
2002-03 · Babson
+356.6% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Thomas Ebbing
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Michigan State (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Kyle Osterberg
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.77 D1 FR PPG)
0.34 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Brady Ferguson
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Robert Morris (0.76 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Mitch Hults
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average
NCAAe PPG
Jake Horton
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Harvard (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Kevin Shand
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2013-14
0.412 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Carter Roo
Wisconsin-Stevens Point · 2014-15
0.593 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Trever Hertz
Utica · 2007-08
0.808 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.