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

Jake Hewitt

Position: Forward DOB: ⚠ Missing — add in admin Country: ?
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
2018-19 Cushing Academy NE-Prep 33 15 13 28 0.849 0.2394 0.2394 0.3883 0.3883
2019-20 Cushing Academy NE-Prep 34 16 17 33 0.971 0.2738 0.2738 0.4441 0.4441
■ 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 Sacred Heart D1 AHA JR 19 0 3 3 0.158
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.22
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.16
2025-26 · Sacred Heart
-29.1% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

8%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
68%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#19994
Forward overall
#181
in NE-Prep

D1 Comparables

Thomas Ebbing
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Michigan (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Kyle Osterberg
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.77 D1 FR PPG)
0.33 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Mitch Hults
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Average
NCAAe PPG
Jake Horton
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Harvard (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Zach Aston-Reese
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.54 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Luke Sawicky
Bethel · 2022-23
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
David McNab
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2002-03
0.750 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Justin Brandt
Tufts · 2016-17
0.474 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.