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

Daniel Halonen Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2007-08-07 Country: USA
Michigan Tech
CCHA D1

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
2023-24 Delano USHS-MN 24 8 11 19 0.792 0.1002 0.1002 0.1923 0.1923
2024-25 Delano USHS-MN 27 13 25 38 1.407 0.1782 0.1782 0.3419 0.3419
2025-26 Watertown Shamrocks NAHL 12 5 1 6 0.500 0.1837 0.1943 0.5278 0.5582
■ Blue = NCAAe (D1 anchor)   ■ Green = D3e (D3 anchor)   COVID-flagged seasons highlighted in yellow

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

45%
NCAA D1
5%
NCAA D2/D3
10%
Age-Out / Club
40%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#20201
Forward overall
#607
Forward born in 2007

D1 Comparables

Adam Johnson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.46 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average
NCAAe PPG
Gage Torrel
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Lake Superior State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Average
NCAAe PPG
Nate Arentz
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.41 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Max Shuart
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ Michigan
0.25 No data
NCAAe PPG
Zach Aston-Reese
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Northeastern (0.54 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Average
NCAAe PPG

Michigan Tech Alumni similar profiles who attended this school

Henry Bartle
USHS-MN 2019-20
0.31
actual FR PPG at Michigan Tech
Tom Leppä
USHL 2023-24
0.31
actual FR PPG at Michigan Tech
Matthew Van Blaricom
USHL 2024-25
0.36
actual FR PPG at Michigan Tech
Logan Morrell
USHL 2021-22
0.66
actual FR PPG at Michigan Tech

D2/3 Comparables

Keenan Lund
Augsburg · 2016-17
0.739 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Brayden Fryfogle
Canton · 2021-22
0.478 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Nikita Kozyrev
Buffalo State · 2016-17
1.231 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.