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

Cameron Crotty Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1999-05-05 Country: Canada
2017 · Round 3, Pick #82  ·  Utah Mammoth Utah Mammoth (via ARI)
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
2015-16 — CCHL 57 3 15 18 0.316 0.0685 0.0768 0.2443 0.2737
2016-17 — CCHL 41 4 9 13 0.317 0.0688 0.0735 0.2453 0.2620
■ 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
2019-20 Boston University D1 HockeyEast — 30 4 5 9 0.300
2018-19 Boston University D1 HockeyEast — 38 5 5 10 0.263
2017-18 Boston University D1 HockeyEast — 34 1 7 8 0.235
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.07
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.24
2017-18 · Boston University
+233.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Scott Savage
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ Boston College (0.51 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Dorantes
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ Ferris State (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Gage Ausmus
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Luke Shiplo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.46 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Christian Wolanin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.47 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Akhmed Malsagov
Lawrence · 2017-18
0.231 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Lukas Ciotti
Adrian · 2007-08
0.778 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Blake Roubos
Lawrence · 2010-11
1.000 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.