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

Anthony Scarpino Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1988-02-03 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
2006-07 Brockville Braves CCHL 54 8 21 29 0.537 0.1165 0.1165 0.4157 0.4157
2007-08 — CCHL 46 24 21 45 0.978 0.2122 0.2020 0.7573 0.7209
■ 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
2011-12 Hamilton D3 NESCAC GR 25 15 16 31 1.240
2010-11 Hamilton D3 NESCAC SR 25 8 12 20 0.800
2009-10 Hamilton D3 — JR 22 12 10 22 1.000
2008-09 Hobart D3 — — 7 1 3 4 0.571
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.14
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.57
2008-09 · Hobart
+297.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#20578
Forward overall
#746
Forward born in 1988
#380
in CCHL

D1 Comparables

Alexander Dahl
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.21 No data
NCAAe PPG
Tayler Munson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Average
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ryan Siiro
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Princeton (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Derek Hansberry
Wisconsin-River Falls · 2003-04
1.259 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Ivan Galaguzov
Lawrence · 2017-18
0.444 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Kevin MacLellan
SUNY Potsdam · 2005-06
0.647 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.