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

Stanton Turner Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1992-09-03 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 4 0 1 1 0.250 0.0919 0.0922 0.2639 0.2648
■ 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 Suffolk D3 CNE SR 25 3 4 7 0.280
2015-16 Suffolk D3 CNE JR 23 6 9 15 0.652
2014-15 Suffolk D3 CNE SO 26 16 10 26 1.000
2013-14 Suffolk D3 CNE FR 24 6 9 15 0.625
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.08
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.62
2013-14 · Suffolk
+692.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Conor Andrle
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Army (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Average
NCAAe PPG
Josh Erickson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ben Greiner
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 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

D2/3 Comparables

Ryder Nienhuis
Adrian · 2022-23
0.370 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Gustav Lindgren
Lawrence · 2010-11
0.692 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Patrick Choi
Connecticut College · 2017-18
0.235 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.