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

Mikko Virtanen Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1991-07-12 Country: Finland
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
2011-12 Sioux Falls Stampede USHL 13 0 3 3 0.231 0.1361 0.1239 0.6932 0.6310
■ 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
2015-16 Neumann D3 MAC SR 18 0 1 1 0.056
2014-15 Neumann D3 MAC JR 22 0 6 6 0.273
2013-14 Neumann D3 MAC SO 19 0 2 2 0.105
2012-13 Neumann D3 MAC FR 21 2 5 7 0.333
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.12
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.33
2012-13 · Neumann
+184.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#10105
Defenseman overall
#1233
Defenseman born in 1991
#3221
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Carlson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Dominic Racobaldo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Benjamin Gallacher
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Elite D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Egan Schmitt
Babson · 2021-22
0.440 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Deaglan Kelly
UMass Boston · 2024-25
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Neal Sheehan
Fredonia · 2003-04
0.957 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.