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

Michael Forney Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1988-05-14 Country: USA
2006 · Round 3, Pick #80  ·  Atlanta Thrashers
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
2005-06 U.S. National U18 Team NTDP-U18 4 1 0 1 0.250 0.1858 0.1812 0.9328 0.9095
2008-09 Green Bay Gamblers USHL 59 26 34 60 1.017 0.5999 0.5480 3.0542 2.7902
■ 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
2007-08 North Dakota D1 NCHC SO 3 0 0 0 0.000
2006-07 North Dakota D1 NCHC FR 16 0 2 2 0.125
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.12
2006-07 · North Dakota
-19.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#3722
Forward overall
#170
Forward born in 1988

D1 Comparables

Eric Scheid
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.94 PPG
→ Alaska Anchorage (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Average
NCAAe PPG
Shane Sooth
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.95 PPG
→ Northern Michigan (0.45 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Average
NCAAe PPG
Michael Huntebrinker
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.91 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.15 D1 FR PPG)
0.49 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Todd Skirving
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.80 PPG
→ RIT (0.65 D1 FR PPG)
0.43 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Wahlin
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.33 PPG
→ UMass (0.13 D1 FR PPG)
0.46 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Joona Juntunen
Saint Mary's (MN) · 2023-24
0.826 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Conor Landrigan
Utica · 2016-17
1.038 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Ryan Ellis
SUNY Oswego · 2004-05
1.704 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.