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

Jimmy Hayes Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1989-11-21 Country: USA
2008 · Round 2, Pick #60  ·  Toronto Maple Leafs Toronto Maple Leafs
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 — NTDP-U18 70 25 29 54 0.771 0.5734 0.5811 2.8784 2.9168
2007-08 U.S. National U18 Team NTDP-U18 23 2 6 8 0.348 0.2585 0.2473 1.2978 1.2413
■ 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
2010-11 Boston College D1 HockeyEast — 39 21 12 33 0.846
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.33
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.85
2010-11 · Boston College
+159.6% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#13314
Forward overall
#467
Forward born in 1989

D1 Comparables

Jake Horton
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Harvard (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Mitch Hults
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Average
NCAAe PPG
Matt Gaudreau
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Boston College (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jake Jackson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.09 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Drew Melanson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.48 PPG
→ RPI (0.56 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Vadim Kiryakov
Buffalo State · 2018-19
0.800 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Bailey Conger
UMass Boston · 2014-15
2.500 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Sean Tyrie
Worcester State · 2022-23
0.800 Strong
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.