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

John Hayden Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1995-02-14 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 11 15 26 0.473 0.3760 0.3824 1.7704 1.8003
2012-13 — NTDP-U18 53 17 17 34 0.641 0.5102 0.4922 2.4025 2.3176
■ 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
2016-17 Yale D1 ECAC SR 33 21 13 34 1.030
2015-16 Yale D1 ECAC JR 32 16 7 23 0.719
2014-15 Yale D1 ECAC SO 29 7 11 18 0.621
2013-14 Yale D1 ECAC FR 33 6 10 16 0.485
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.38
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.48
2013-14 · Yale
+26.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#3514
Forward overall
#134
Forward born in 1995

D1 Comparables

Tyler Motte
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.67 PPG
→ Michigan (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.52 Average
NCAAe PPG
Evan Allen
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.72 PPG
→ Michigan (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.55 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Kelleher
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ New Hampshire (0.43 D1 FR PPG)
0.48 Average
NCAAe PPG
Vinni Lettieri
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.92 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.61 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Anthony Louis
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.82 PPG
→ Miami (0.69 D1 FR PPG)
0.63 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Ryan Reifler
Elmira · 2016-17
1.067 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Joseph Fiorino
Southern New Hampshire · 2016-17
0.593 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Tyler Barrow
Wilkes · 2016-17
1.385 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.