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

Sean MacTavish Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1994-11-21 Country: Canada
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 Sherwood Park Crusaders AJHL 55 14 19 33 0.600 0.2012 0.2112 0.5552 0.5829
2013-14 Sherwood Park Crusaders AJHL 60 28 44 72 1.200 0.4025 0.4017 1.1105 1.1082
2014-15 — USHL 53 3 13 16 0.302 0.1781 0.1655 0.9067 0.8426
■ 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 Alaska Anchorage D1 WCHA SO 10 0 0 0 0.000
2015-16 Alaska Anchorage D1 WCHA FR 30 2 6 8 0.267
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.22
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.27
2015-16 · Alaska Anchorage
+19.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#20764
Forward overall
#806
Forward born in 1994

D1 Comparables

Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.21 No data
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Alexander Dahl
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tayler Munson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Mike Mikulan
Aurora · 2011-12
0.824 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Nick Felan
Lawrence · 2014-15
0.909 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Troy York
Wisconsin-Superior · 2016-17
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.