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

Theo Hannah Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1991-03-18 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
2009-10 Carleton Place Canadians CCHL 60 1 16 17 0.283 0.0809 0.0812 0.2193 0.2200
2010-11 Carleton Place Canadians CCHL 62 2 15 17 0.274 0.0783 0.0747 0.2123 0.2025
2011-12 Carleton Place Canadians CCHL 62 2 18 20 0.323 0.0921 0.0831 0.2497 0.2253
■ 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
2015-16 Amherst D3 NESCAC SR 24 1 5 6 0.250
2014-15 Amherst D3 NESCAC JR 28 0 4 4 0.143
2013-14 Amherst D3 NESCAC SO 27 1 5 6 0.222
2012-13 Amherst D3 NESCAC FR 14 0 0 0 0.000

NCAAe Rankings

#14551
Defenseman overall
#1602
Defenseman born in 1991
#1674
in CCHL

D1 Comparables

Carter Foguth
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.05 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Michael Holland
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ RIT (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Marc-Antoine Carrier
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Drew Brevig
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.64 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.22 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Carlson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Andrew Nieusma
Lake Forest · 2021-22
0.182 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Keith Clarke
Hobart · 2009-10
0.188 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Cashen Naeve
Saint John's · 2024-25
0.440 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.