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

Tanner Laczynski Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1997-06-01 Country: USA
Signed Professionally

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
2013-14 — USHL 2 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2014-15 — USHL 57 18 28 46 0.807 0.5139 0.5425 2.4183 2.5529
2015-16 — USHL 52 24 39 63 1.212 0.7715 0.7786 3.6305 3.6638
■ 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
2019-20 Ohio State D1 BigTen SR 36 11 23 34 0.944
2018-19 Ohio State D1 BigTen JR 27 10 20 30 1.111
2017-18 Ohio State D1 BigTen SO 41 17 30 47 1.146
2016-17 Ohio State D1 BigTen FR 34 10 22 32 0.941
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.64
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.94
2016-17 · Ohio State
+47.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

Nick Schilkey
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.20 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.70 D1 FR PPG)
0.77 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Alex Kile
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.07 PPG
→ Michigan (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.69 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Vinnie Hinostroza
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.30 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.94 D1 FR PPG)
0.83 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Dennis Kravchenko
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.11 PPG
→ UMass (0.92 D1 FR PPG)
0.70 Elite
NCAAe PPG
Peter Quenneville
USHL · 2012-13 · 1.11 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.80 D1 FR PPG)
0.70 Elite
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.