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

Anthony Scarsella Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1996-03-20 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
2014-15 Springfield Jr. Blues NAHL 49 4 11 15 0.306 0.1125 0.1156 0.3231 0.3320
2015-16 Springfield Jr. Blues NAHL 59 8 17 25 0.424 0.1557 0.1531 0.4472 0.4398
■ 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
2019-20 Michigan State D1 BigTen SR 1 0 0 0 0.000
2018-19 Michigan D1 BigTen — 0 0 0 0 0.000
2017-18 Michigan State D1 BigTen SO 9 1 0 1 0.111
2016-17 Michigan State D1 BigTen FR 9 0 0 0 0.000

NCAAe Rankings

#10685
Defenseman overall
#1587
Defenseman born in 1996
#3744
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Vinny Muto
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.29 PPG
→ Niagara (0.51 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Johnny Hrabovsky
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Air Force (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Max Everson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Harvard (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Victor Björkung
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Aleksi Rossi
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ Brown
0.08 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Connor Barter
Post · 2018-19
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Zach Satalino
Lawrence · 2015-16
0.538 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Darren McCormick
SUNY Cortland · 2012-13
1.320 Elite
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.