← New Search ↗ Social Card

Tyler Motte Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1995-03-10 Country: USA
2013 · Round 4, Pick #121  ·  Chicago Blackhawks Chicago Blackhawks
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 0.5676 0.5791 2.8493 2.9069
2012-13 U.S. National U18 Team NTDP-U18 67 26 19 45 0.672 0.4992 0.4832 2.5060 2.4257
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
0.49
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.53
2013-14 · Michigan
+9.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#7017
Forward overall
#343
Forward born in 1995

D1 Comparables

NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.64 PPG
→ Yale (0.48 D1 FR PPG)
0.46 Average
NCAAe PPG
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.72 PPG
→ Michigan (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.51 Developing
NCAAe PPG
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.66 PPG
→ Harvard (0.65 D1 FR PPG)
0.48 Strong
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.92 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.56 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.85 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.53 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Elmira · 2014-15
0.800 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Southern New Hampshire · 2016-17
0.593 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
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.