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

Tyler Moy Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1995-07-18 Country: Switzerland
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
2012-13 Omaha Lancers USHL 64 4 19 23 0.359 0.2289 0.2422 1.0770 1.1394
■ 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 Harvard D1 ECAC SR 36 22 23 45 1.250
2015-16 Harvard D1 ECAC JR 31 7 12 19 0.613
2014-15 Harvard D1 ECAC SO 37 12 15 27 0.730
2013-14 Harvard D1 ECAC FR 27 4 6 10 0.370
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.21
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.37
2013-14 · Harvard
+78.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#16797
Forward overall
#631
Forward born in 1995
#2466
in USHL

D1 Comparables

Brandon Salerno
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.36 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Hudson Fasching
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.44 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.75 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Joel L'Esperance
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.59 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Dawson Cook
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.32 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Jake Ahlgren
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.25 PPG
→ Bentley (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Brent Wold
Utica · 2010-11
1.000 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Luke Moodie
SUNY Oswego · 2005-06
0.926 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
John Barrett
Wilkes · 2016-17
0.000 No data
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.