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

Ryan Hitchcock Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-03-30 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
2012-13 — NTDP-U18 56 14 19 33 0.589 0.4687 0.4784 2.2070 2.2528
2013-14 U.S. National U18 Team NTDP-U18 53 12 37 49 0.924 0.7353 0.7103 3.4624 3.3446
■ 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
2017-18 Yale D1 ECAC SR 31 7 13 20 0.645
2016-17 Yale D1 ECAC JR 17 3 16 19 1.118
2015-16 Yale D1 ECAC SO 22 8 6 14 0.636
2014-15 Yale D1 ECAC FR 33 3 12 15 0.455
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.57
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.45
2014-15 · Yale
-20.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#994
Forward overall
#39
Forward born in 1996

D1 Comparables

Trevor Moore
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.02 PPG
→ Denver (0.76 D1 FR PPG)
0.67 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Anthony Louis
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.04 PPG
→ Miami (0.69 D1 FR PPG)
0.69 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Sean Malone
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.87 PPG
→ Harvard (0.65 D1 FR PPG)
0.58 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

Arkhip Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Neil Trimm
Neumann · 2003-04
1.800 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Filimon Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 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.