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

Taylor Vichorek Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1988-08-25 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
2006-07 — NAHL 48 2 8 10 0.208 0.0765 0.0797 0.2202 0.2293
2007-08 — NAHL 53 9 10 19 0.358 0.1317 0.1307 0.3789 0.3760
2008-09 St. Cloud Norsemen NAHL 51 10 9 19 0.372 0.1369 0.1290 0.3937 0.3711
■ 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
2009-10 Hamline D3 MIAC FR 26 6 7 13 0.500
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.12
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.50
2009-10 · Hamline
+308.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#12858
Defenseman overall
#1344
Defenseman born in 1988
#4326
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Benjamin Gallacher
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.45 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Carlson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Patrick Koudys
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ RPI (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Kyle Wadden
SUNY Morrisville · 2017-18
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Tyler Sifferlen
UMass Boston · 2015-16
0.444 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Scott Swanson
Norwich · 2016-17
0.480 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.