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

Mick Thompson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2004-03-01 Country: Canada
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
2021-22 Chicago Steel USHL 39 2 5 7 0.179 0.1059 0.1105 0.5391 0.5627
2022-23 Chicago Steel USHL 57 14 24 38 0.667 0.3933 0.3901 2.0024 1.9859
2023-24 Chicago Steel USHL 54 24 39 63 1.167 0.6882 0.6484 3.5041 3.3012
■ 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 Harvard D1 ECAC SO 33 9 18 27 0.818
2024-25 Harvard D1 ECAC — 33 14 18 32 0.970
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.51
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.97
2024-25 · Harvard
+91.1% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

90%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
10%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#6243
Forward overall
#195
Forward born in 2004
#396
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Michael Vecchione
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.95 PPG
→ Union (0.89 D1 FR PPG)
0.53 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Dominik Shine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.90 PPG
→ Northern Michigan (0.45 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Average
NCAAe PPG
Luc Gerdes
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.00 PPG
→ Colorado College (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.56 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Sam Anas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.98 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (1.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.55 Elite
NCAAe PPG
J.T. Stenglein
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.04 PPG
→ Michigan (0.07 D1 FR PPG)
0.59 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Neil Trimm
Neumann · 2003-04
1.800 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Arkhip Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Filimon Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 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.