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

Matt Hughes Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1987-12-06 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
2005-06 Bozeman Ice Dogs NAHL 28 3 3 6 0.214 0.0787 0.0830 0.2262 0.2385
2006-07 Traverse City North Stars NAHL 62 16 5 21 0.339 0.1244 0.1251 0.3575 0.3594
2007-08 Traverse City North Stars NAHL 49 13 11 24 0.490 0.1800 0.1721 0.5170 0.4944
■ 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
2011-12 Lawrence D3 NCHA SR 28 15 12 27 0.964
2010-11 Lawrence D3 NCHA JR 28 13 15 28 1.000
2009-10 Lawrence D3 NCHA SO 28 10 10 20 0.714
2008-09 Lawrence D3 NCHA FR 28 8 8 16 0.571
2003-04 Finlandia D3 — — 7 4 5 9 1.286

NCAAe Rankings

#36319
Forward overall
#1182
Forward born in 1987
#3691
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.21 No data
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 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

Troy Andrews
New England College · 2021-22
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Hayden Dawes
Utica · 2013-14
0.667 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Spencer DeRidder
Salem State · 2018-19
0.522 Average
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.