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

Tanner MacMaster Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-01-08 Country: Canada
Signed Professionally
HC Vita Hästen · Allsvenskan

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
2011-12 Camrose Kodiaks AJHL 2 2 0 2 1.000 0.3354 0.3883 0.9252 1.0711
2012-13 Camrose Kodiaks AJHL 54 24 24 48 0.889 0.2981 0.3298 0.8224 0.9099
2013-14 Camrose Kodiaks AJHL 48 11 29 40 0.833 0.2795 0.2947 0.7710 0.8130
2021-22 MoDo Hockey Allsvenskan 22 2 2 4 0.182 0.4545 0.4429 1.7047 1.6610
2022-23 HC Vita Hästen Allsvenskan 31 6 8 14 0.452 1.1290 1.0366 4.2347 3.8880
■ 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
2017-18 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC SR 38 13 20 33 0.868
2016-17 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC JR 32 8 11 19 0.594
2015-16 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC SO 43 4 16 20 0.465
2014-15 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC FR 37 5 7 12 0.324
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.26
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.32
2014-15 · Quinnipiac
+22.7% 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

#2905
Forward overall
#161
Forward born in 1996

D2/3 Comparables

Neil Trimm
Neumann · 2003-04
1.800 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Arkhip Ledenkov
St. Scholastica · 2018-19
1.636 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Brandon Osmundson
Utica · 2018-19
1.448 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.