← New Search ↗ Social Card

Justin Derlago Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1994-02-03 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
2010-11 Selkirk Steelers MJHL 2 0 0 0 0.000
2011-12 Selkirk Steelers MJHL 38 7 4 11 0.289 0.0787 0.0842 0.1824 0.1952
2012-13 Selkirk Steelers MJHL 57 13 12 25 0.439 0.1193 0.1217 0.2764 0.2821
2013-14 Selkirk Steelers MJHL 34 7 8 15 0.441 0.1200 0.1164 0.2780 0.2696
2014-15 Selkirk Steelers MJHL 56 26 21 47 0.839 0.2282 0.2095 0.5289 0.4855
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
2018-19 Utica D1 SR 6 0 2 2 0.333
2018-19 Utica D3 UCHC SR 6 0 2 2 0.333
2017-18 Utica D3 UCHC JR 25 6 10 16 0.640
2016-17 Utica D3 UCHC SO 18 4 8 12 0.667
2015-16 Utica D3 UCHC FR 12 4 1 5 0.417
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.15
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.42
2015-16 · Utica
+182.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#33352
Forward overall
#1279
Forward born in 1994
#725
in MJHL

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Boston University
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.59 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.32 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Brown (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Skidmore · 2016-17
0.478 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
UMass Dartmouth · 2018-19
0.600 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Wisconsin-Stevens Point · 2016-17
0.577 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.