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

Michael Piehler Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-10-18 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
2015-16 Austin Bruins NAHL 30 7 6 13 0.433 0.1609 0.1629 0.4588 0.4645
2016-17 Austin Bruins NAHL 49 12 12 24 0.490 0.1819 0.1743 0.5186 0.4969
■ 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
2020-21 Bethel D3 MIAC SR 7 2 5 7 1.000
2019-20 Bethel D3 MIAC JR 17 4 4 8 0.471
2018-19 Bethel D3 MIAC SO 20 5 1 6 0.300
2017-18 Bethel D3 MIAC FR 25 3 7 10 0.400
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.15
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.40
2017-18 · Bethel
+175.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#24928
Forward overall
#1045
Forward born in 1996
#2718
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Ian Miller
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.57 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Doucet
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ Air Force (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Woody Hudson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Nick DeCenzo
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Army (0.32 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Mike Collins
Elmira · 2011-12
1.000 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Arthur Gordon
SUNY Geneseo · 2014-15
0.652 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Greg Diamond
SUNY Geneseo · 2024-25
0.518 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.