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

Johnathan Kovacevic Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1997-07-12 Country: Canada
2017 · Round 3, Pick #74  ·  Winnipeg Jets Winnipeg Jets
Signed Professionally

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
2014-15 — CCHL 52 5 14 19 0.365 0.0793 0.0855 0.2827 0.3048
2015-16 — CCHL 51 8 28 36 0.706 0.1531 0.1577 0.5462 0.5626
■ 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
2018-19 Merrimack D1 HockeyEast JR 31 4 14 18 0.581
2017-18 Merrimack D1 HockeyEast SO 34 2 15 17 0.500
2016-17 Merrimack D1 HockeyEast FR 36 3 16 19 0.528
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.12
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.53
2016-17 · Merrimack
+334.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Cutler Martin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Michigan (0.47 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Doyle Somerby
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Boston University (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Jimmy Mazza
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Canisius (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Jake Bischoff
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Chris Leibinger
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.13 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Brayden Fryfogle
Canton · 2021-22
0.478 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Scott Schroeder
Norwich · 2006-07
0.737 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Keenan Lund
Augsburg · 2016-17
0.739 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.