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

Derek Smith Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1994-10-24 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
2012-13 Coulee Region Chill NAHL 60 2 19 21 0.350 0.1300 0.1378 0.3706 0.3929
■ 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 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC SR 32 0 11 11 0.344
2015-16 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC JR 37 3 13 16 0.432
2014-15 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC SO 36 0 13 13 0.361
2013-14 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC FR 35 2 8 10 0.286
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.13
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.29
2013-14 · Quinnipiac
+119.6% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#8813
Defenseman overall
#1296
Defenseman born in 1994
#3821
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Kyle Mackey
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.16 PPG
→ Air Force (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Ruslan Pedan
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.34 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Brett Beauvais
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.61 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Joseph Grabowski
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Princeton (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Zach Yoder
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.10 PPG
→ Air Force (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.07 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Tristan Mock
Becker · 2017-18
0.444 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Bryant Wilson
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2001-02
0.448 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Zac Sikich
SUNY Brockport · 2011-12
0.440 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.