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

Vinny Muto Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1993-03-13 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 Cowichan Valley Capitals BCHL 57 6 13 19 0.333 0.1297 0.1313 0.4861 0.4919
2012-13 — USHL 56 4 12 16 0.286 0.1819 0.1711 0.8562 0.8053
■ 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 Niagara D1 AHA SR 39 6 7 13 0.333
2015-16 Niagara D1 AHA JR 35 1 11 12 0.343
2014-15 Niagara D1 AHA SO 25 0 6 6 0.240
2013-14 Niagara D1 AHA FR 37 5 14 19 0.513
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.15
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.51
2013-14 · Niagara
+250.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#6349
Defenseman overall
#1003
Defenseman born in 1993

D1 Comparables

Nick Hinz
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Alaska
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG
Johnny Hrabovsky
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Air Force (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Max Everson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Harvard (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Geoff Fortman
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Canisius (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Joseph Fiala
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Ethan James
Wisconsin-Superior · 2014-15
1.000 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Christopher Zuccaro
Plymouth State · 2013-14
0.667 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Blake Roubos
Lawrence · 2012-13
1.000 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.