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

Michael Dery Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1992-09-20 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 Corpus Christi IceRays NAHL 47 8 10 18 0.383 0.1407 0.1415 0.4043 0.4066
2012-13 Michigan Warriors NAHL 2 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
■ 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
2014-15 Worcester State D3 MASCAC — 18 2 3 5 0.278
2013-14 Worcester State D3 MASCAC — 19 4 1 5 0.263
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.12
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.26
2013-14 · Worcester State
+117.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#36056
Forward overall
#1370
Forward born in 1992
#3653
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Conor Andrle
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Army (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Average
NCAAe PPG
Landon Smith
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.79 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Hynes
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.28 PPG
→ Union (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Dylan Gareau
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Clarkson (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Josh Erickson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Niko Benjamin
Norwich · 2023-24
0.586 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Andrew Love
Neumann · 2007-08
0.650 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Kevin Paganini
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2018-19
0.625 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.