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

Derek Myronuk Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1980-01-29 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
2000-01 Burlington Cougars OJHL 42 15 19 34 0.809 0.1984 0.1717 0.5541 0.4795
■ 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
2002-03 Lake Forest D3 — SO 14 1 3 4 0.286
2001-02 Lake Forest D3 — FR 17 0 3 3 0.176
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.15
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.18
2001-02 · Lake Forest
+20.1% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#21989
Forward overall
#430
Forward born in 1980
#955
in OJHL

D1 Comparables

Will Suter
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ali Thomas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Yasin Cissé
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Boston University
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
Jordan Nelson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.59 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Davey Middleton
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Brown (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Steven Quagliata
Wisconsin-Stevens Point · 2016-17
0.577 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Michael Rowbotham
Amherst · 2010-11
0.640 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Noah Batis
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2015-16
0.235 Developing
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.