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

Tyler Motte Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1995-03-10 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
2011-12 — NTDP-U18 55 26 16 42 0.764 0.6074 0.6197 2.8598 2.9176
2012-13 U.S. National U18 Team NTDP-U18 67 26 19 45 0.672 0.5342 0.5171 2.5153 2.4347
■ 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
2015-16 Michigan D1 BigTen JR 38 32 24 56 1.474
2014-15 Michigan D1 BigTen SO 35 9 22 31 0.886
2013-14 Michigan D1 BigTen FR 34 9 9 18 0.529
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.52
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.53
2013-14 · Michigan
+1.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#3334
Forward overall
#129
Forward born in 1995

D1 Comparables

John Hayden
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.64 PPG
→ Yale (0.48 D1 FR PPG)
0.49 Average
NCAAe PPG
Evan Allen
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.72 PPG
→ Michigan (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.55 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Sean Malone
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.66 PPG
→ Harvard (0.65 D1 FR PPG)
0.51 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Vinni Lettieri
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.92 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.61 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Gabe Guertler
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.85 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.57 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Nick Ford
Elmira · 2014-15
0.800 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Joseph Fiorino
Southern New Hampshire · 2016-17
0.593 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Jason Kalinowski
Endicott · 2015-16
1.310 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.