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

Dominic Toninato Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1994-03-09 Country: USA
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 — USHL 4 1 0 1 0.250 0.1592 0.1661 0.7492 0.7816
2012-13 — USHL 64 29 41 70 1.094 0.6965 0.6896 3.2778 3.2452
■ 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
2016-17 Minnesota Duluth D1 NCHC SR 42 16 13 29 0.691
2015-16 Minnesota Duluth D1 NCHC JR 40 15 6 21 0.525
2014-15 Minnesota Duluth D1 NCHC SO 34 16 10 26 0.765
2013-14 Minnesota Duluth D1 NCHC FR 35 7 8 15 0.429
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.41
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.43
2013-14 · Minnesota Duluth
+4.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#634
Forward overall
#24
Forward born in 1994
#87
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Peter Quenneville
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.11 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.80 D1 FR PPG)
0.70 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Dennis Kravchenko
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.11 PPG
→ UMass (0.92 D1 FR PPG)
0.70 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Frank Vatrano
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.00 PPG
→ UMass
0.63 No data
NCAAe PPG
Austin Ortega
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.91 PPG
→ Nebraska Omaha (0.54 D1 FR PPG)
0.58 Average
NCAAe PPG
Sheldon Dries
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.91 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.58 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Arkhip Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Filimon Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Neil Trimm
Neumann · 2003-04
1.800 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.