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

Erik Hansen Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1989-10-10 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
2009-10 Quesnel Millionaires BCHL 29 4 9 13 0.448 0.1670 0.1574 0.6532 0.6158
■ 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
2013-14 Amherst D3 NESCAC SR 26 2 3 5 0.192
2012-13 Amherst D3 NESCAC JR 15 0 0 0 0.000
2011-12 Amherst D3 NESCAC SO 27 5 4 9 0.333
2010-11 Amherst D3 NESCAC FR 19 3 4 7 0.368
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.13
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.37
2010-11 · Amherst
+173.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#33702
Forward overall
#1096
Forward born in 1989
#2148
in BCHL

D1 Comparables

Woody Hudson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.22 No data
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Eli Lichtenwald
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.36 PPG
→ Union (0.68 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Alexander Dahl
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

David McNab
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2004-05
0.750 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Dalton Carter
Utica · 2013-14
0.692 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Jordan Singer
Wisconsin-Eau Claire · 2008-09
0.682 Strong
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.