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

Vinnie Hinostroza Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1994-04-03 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
2010-11 — USHL 50 8 14 22 0.440 0.2705 0.2957 1.2963 1.4173
2011-12 — USHL 55 20 24 44 0.800 0.4918 0.5147 2.3570 2.4670
2012-13 — USHL 46 25 35 60 1.304 0.8018 0.7966 3.8427 3.8176
■ 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
2014-15 Notre Dame D1 — SO 42 11 33 44 1.048
2013-14 Notre Dame D1 — FR 34 8 24 32 0.941
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.64
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.94
2013-14 · Notre Dame
+47.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#4086
Forward overall
#216
Forward born in 1994
#151
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Nick Schilkey
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.20 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.70 D1 FR PPG)
0.74 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Dennis Kravchenko
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.11 PPG
→ UMass (0.92 D1 FR PPG)
0.68 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Peter Quenneville
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.11 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.80 D1 FR PPG)
0.68 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Dominic Toninato
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.09 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.43 D1 FR PPG)
0.67 Average
NCAAe PPG
Zach Stepan
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.39 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.60 D1 FR PPG)
0.84 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Arkhip Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Neil Trimm
Neumann · 2003-04
1.800 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Filimon Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 Elite
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.