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

Mike Dockry Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1992-12-06 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 Bismarck Bobcats NAHL 17 1 1 2 0.118 0.0437 0.0444 0.1245 0.1265
2012-13 Bismarck Bobcats NAHL 58 11 14 25 0.431 0.1600 0.1546 0.4563 0.4408
■ 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 St. Thomas D3 — SR 27 11 13 24 0.889
2015-16 St. Thomas D3 — JR 26 8 10 18 0.692
2014-15 St. Thomas D3 — SO 24 4 12 16 0.667
2013-14 St. Thomas D3 — FR 19 4 7 11 0.579
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.09
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.58
2013-14 · St. Thomas
+511.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#35314
Forward overall
#1481
Forward born in 1992
#4451
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Nick DeCenzo
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Army (0.32 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG
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
Evan Ritt
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.67 PPG
→ Denver
0.24 No data
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Ian Zaleski
Becker · 2018-19
0.476 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Zach Blake
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2010-11
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Taylor Trapp
Hamline · 2015-16
0.318 Developing
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.