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

Troy Hesketh Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1991-07-05 Country: USA
2009 · Round 3, Pick #71  ·  Edmonton Oilers Edmonton Oilers
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 34 0 1 1 0.029 0.0173 0.0165 0.0883 0.0844
■ 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
2011-12 Hamline D3 MIAC FR 19 0 5 5 0.263
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.02
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.26
2011-12 · Hamline
+1587.2% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#31517
Defenseman overall
#2381
Defenseman born in 1991
#4255
in USHL

D1 Comparables

James Roll
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Dan Molenaar
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Joe Schuldt
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Michigan Tech
0.05 No data
NCAAe PPG
Neal Goff
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ Western Michigan (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Cameron McDonald
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.11 PPG
→ Providence (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.05 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Joey Pankowski
Lebanon Valley · 2023-24
0.231 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Jeff Makowski
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2015-16
0.231 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Emil Blomqvist
Elmira · 2012-13
0.083 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.