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

Thomas Ebbing Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1994-09-28 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
2012-13 Chicago Steel USHL 60 16 11 27 0.450 0.2655 0.2702 1.3515 1.3756
■ 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 Michigan State D1 BigTen SR 35 3 13 16 0.457
2015-16 Michigan State D1 BigTen JR 37 5 14 19 0.513
2014-15 Michigan State D1 BigTen SO 35 4 7 11 0.314
2013-14 Michigan State D1 BigTen FR 36 2 7 9 0.250
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.23
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.25
2013-14 · Michigan State
+8.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#18407
Forward overall
#728
Forward born in 1994
#1794
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Kyle Osterberg
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.77 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Mitch Hults
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Average
NCAAe PPG
Zach Aston-Reese
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.54 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average
NCAAe PPG
Jake Horton
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Harvard (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jason Salvaggio
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.65 PPG
→ New Hampshire (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.39 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Mickey Gilchrist
Middlebury · 2002-03
1.000 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Joshua Burke
Amherst · 2018-19
0.692 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Blake Ulve
St. Norbert · 2020-21
0.552 Average
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.