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

Tyler Inamoto Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1999-05-06 Country: USA
2017 · Round 5, Pick #133  ·  Florida Panthers Florida Panthers
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
2015-16 U.S. National U17 Team NTDP-U18 27 0 3 3 0.111 0.0826 0.0847 0.4146 0.4252
2016-17 U.S. National U18 Team NTDP-U18 51 2 11 13 0.255 0.1895 0.1850 0.9511 0.9287
■ 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
2021-22 Wisconsin D1 BigTen — 26 0 2 2 0.077
2020-21 Wisconsin D1 BigTen SR 26 1 8 9 0.346
2019-20 Wisconsin D1 BigTen JR 35 2 5 7 0.200
2018-19 Wisconsin D1 BigTen SO 34 1 6 7 0.206
2017-18 Wisconsin D1 BigTen FR 37 1 3 4 0.108
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.14
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.11
2017-18 · Wisconsin
-21.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#7602
Defenseman overall
#1601
Defenseman born in 1999

D1 Comparables

Jimmy Schuldt
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ St. Cloud State (0.63 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Connor Clifton
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.36 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Gage Ausmus
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ North Dakota (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Murphy
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.48 PPG
→ Northland (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Luke Shiplo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.46 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Mike Fiume
Neumann · 2000-01
1.040 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Travis Janke
Norwich · 2007-08
1.258 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Tom Bark
Lake Forest · 2007-08
1.120 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.