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

Stefano Bottini Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2002-05-03 Country: Switzerland
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
2020-21 Penticton Vees BCHL 17 4 4 8 0.471 0.1753 0.1753 0.6857 0.6857
2021-22 Penticton Vees BCHL 51 11 17 28 0.549 0.2045 0.1987 0.7999 0.7772
■ 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
2025-26 Canisius D1 AHA SR 32 4 4 8 0.250
2024-25 Canisius D1 AHA JR 33 3 1 4 0.121
2023-24 Canisius D1 AHA SO 23 4 6 10 0.435
2022-23 Canisius D1 AHA FR 32 4 4 8 0.250
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.17
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.25
2022-23 · Canisius
+47.0% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

38%
NCAA D1
5%
NCAA D2/D3
25%
Age-Out / Club
32%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#29369
Forward overall
#1712
Forward born in 2002
#1823
in BCHL

D1 Comparables

Tommy Schutt
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Matthew Hansen
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.25 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tanner Pond
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Gage Hough
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Matt Pohlkamp
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Austin Nault
St. Thomas · 2018-19
1.000 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Pat Power
Wisconsin-Superior · 2003-04
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Eric Berglund
Manhattanville · 2013-14
0.696 Strong
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.