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

Derek Stabile Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1985-01-04 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
2004-05 Soo Indians NAHL 26 1 6 7 0.269 0.0989 0.0948 0.2841 0.2722
2005-06 Northern Michigan Black Bears NOJHL 39 20 15 35 0.897 0.1499 0.1368 0.3736 0.3409
■ 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 Becker D3 — SR 3 0 1 1 0.333
2008-09 Becker D3 — JR 18 1 2 3 0.167
2007-08 Becker D3 — SO 25 4 5 9 0.360
2006-07 Becker D3 — FR 22 4 10 14 0.636
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.10
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.64
2006-07 · Becker
+519.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#33354
Forward overall
#1039
Forward born in 1985

D1 Comparables

Will Suter
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ali Thomas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Yasin Cissé
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Boston University
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
Davey Middleton
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Brown (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Eli Lichtenwald
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.36 PPG
→ Union (0.68 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Marco Iozzo
SUNY Oswego · 2023-24
0.250 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Sam Antenucci
Trine · 2021-22
0.792 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Brandon MacKinnon
Concordia · 2017-18
0.478 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.