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

Shael Hechter Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1989-11-17 Country: Canada
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 Portage Terriers MJHL 3 1 1 2 0.667 0.1283 0.1420 0.4204 0.4651
2007-08 Neepawa Titans MJHL 59 22 25 47 0.797 0.1533 0.1614 0.5023 0.5287
2008-09 Nipawin Hawks SJHL 28 7 17 24 0.857 0.2196 0.2219 0.6461 0.6529
2009-10 Winkler Flyers MJHL 60 24 26 50 0.833 0.1604 0.1537 0.5255 0.5037
■ 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
2010-11 Gustavus Adolphus D3 MIAC — 24 6 6 12 0.500
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.15
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.50
2010-11 · Gustavus Adolphus
+222.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#21051
Forward overall
#708
Forward born in 1989
#185
in MJHL

D1 Comparables

Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.21 No data
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tayler Munson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Average
NCAAe PPG
Alexander Dahl
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Kyle Buchanan
Hamline · 2007-08
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Cam Shaheen
Hobart · 2014-15
0.579 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Scott Cuthrell
Nichols · 2013-14
0.704 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.