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

Mikhail Bushinski Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1992-11-20 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 Fresno Monsters NAHL 60 17 16 33 0.550 0.2042 0.2071 0.5823 0.5905
2012-13 — NAHL 62 8 25 33 0.532 0.1976 0.1905 0.5636 0.5432
■ 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
2017-18 Utica D3 UCHC GR 22 6 15 21 0.955
2016-17 Utica D3 UCHC SR 25 6 13 19 0.760
2015-16 Utica D3 UCHC JR 24 2 10 12 0.500
2014-15 Utica D3 UCHC SO 0 0 0 0 0.000
2013-14 Utica D3 UCHC FR 14 2 1 3 0.214
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.17
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.21
2013-14 · Utica
+27.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#20200
Forward overall
#875
Forward born in 1992
#1920
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Ian Miller
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Nick DeCenzo
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Army (0.32 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Doucet
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ Air Force (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Michael Casale
Salem State · 2013-14
0.680 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Erik Cooper
St. Norbert · 2011-12
0.667 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Chase Decker
Norwich · 2002-03
0.455 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.