Steven Kampfer Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1988-09-24 Country: USA

2007 · Round 3, Pick #93 ·

Anaheim Ducks

Set Commitment

School

Type

Date (optional)

Detected conference: () — projections will update automatically.

Notes (optional)

Projecting as:

Show:

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
2004-05	Sioux City Musketeers	USHL	47	6	13	19	0.404	0.2385	0.2699	1.2143	1.3740
2005-06	Sioux City Musketeers	USHL	56	6	10	16	0.286	0.1685	0.1818	0.8581	0.9260
2021-22	Ak Bars Kazan	KHL	46	11	19	30	0.652	1.6305	1.1392	8.9865	6.2788
2024-25	Traktor Chelyabinsk	KHL	59	10	22	32	0.542	1.3560	0.7227	7.4736	3.9831

■ 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
2009-10	Michigan	D1	BigTen	SR	45	3	23	26	0.578
2008-09	Michigan	D1	BigTen	JR	25	1	12	13	0.520
2007-08	Michigan	D1	BigTen	SO	42	2	15	17	0.405
2006-07	Michigan	D1	BigTen	FR	35	1	3	4	0.114

Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year

Projected PPG

0.20

before college

→

Actual FR PPG

0.11

2006-07 · Michigan

-44.2% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

NCAA D1

NCAA D2/D3

92%

Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#138

Defenseman overall

#34

Defenseman born in 1988

D2/3 Comparables

Neil Trimm

Neumann · 2003-04

1.800 Elite

actual D2/3 PPG

Arkhip Ledenkov

St. Scholastica · 2018-19

1.636 Elite

actual D2/3 PPG

Brandon Osmundson

Utica · 2018-19

1.448 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.