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

Taro Hirose Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-06-30 Country: Canada
Signed Professionally
EHC München · DEL

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
2014-15 Salmon Arm Silverbacks BCHL 58 18 32 50 0.862 0.3211 0.3329 1.2562 1.3025
2015-16 Salmon Arm Silverbacks BCHL 58 15 56 71 1.224 0.4560 0.4484 1.7836 1.7538
2024-25 EHC München DEL 49 15 28 43 0.878 0.9597 0.9731 — —
2025-26 EHC München DEL 50 9 45 54 1.080 1.1811 1.2530 — —
■ 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
2018-19 Michigan D1 BigTen — 36 15 35 50 1.389
2018-19 Michigan State D1 BigTen JR 36 15 35 50 1.389
2017-18 Michigan D1 BigTen — 36 12 30 42 1.167
2017-18 Michigan State D1 BigTen SO 36 12 30 42 1.167
2016-17 Michigan D1 BigTen — 34 6 18 24 0.706
2016-17 Michigan State D1 BigTen FR 34 6 18 24 0.706
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.34
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.71
2016-17 · Michigan
+105.0% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

🏒 NHL / Pro Track — production profile is consistent with players who bypassed or minimized college hockey
0%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
100%
NHL / Pro

NCAAe Rankings

#1715
Forward overall
#98
Forward born in 1996

D2/3 Comparables

Brian Berger
Marian · 2010-11
1.038 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Jason Yuel
Curry · 2005-06
1.769 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Cole Hepler
Lebanon Valley · 2014-15
1.280 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.