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

Hayden Haffey Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1991-02-14 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
2010-11 Navan Grads CCHL 62 6 22 28 0.452 0.1289 0.1224 0.3496 0.3319
■ 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
2012-13 UMass Boston D3 HockeyEast SO 3 0 0 0 0.000
2011-12 UMass Boston D3 — FR 1 0 1 1 1.000
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.12
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.00
2011-12 · UMass Boston
+765.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#8920
Defenseman overall
#1223
Defenseman born in 1991
#1152
in CCHL

D1 Comparables

Brandon Parker
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Joseph Fiala
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.22 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Geoff Fortman
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Canisius (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Nick Hinz
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Alaska
0.17 No data
NCAAe PPG
Kyle McKenzie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.14 PPG
→ Providence (0.15 D1 FR PPG)
0.08 Average D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Dakota Keene
UMass Boston · 2014-15
0.350 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Devin Panzeca
SUNY Potsdam · 2016-17
0.667 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Keegan Bruce
St. Scholastica · 2010-11
0.400 Average
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.