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

Shane Gingera Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1993-02-22 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
2010-11 Winnipeg Saints MJHL 56 25 17 42 0.750 0.1444 0.1550 0.4730 0.5076
2011-12 Winnipeg Saints MJHL 42 10 23 33 0.786 0.1512 0.1546 0.4955 0.5068
2012-13 — MJHL 55 24 19 43 0.782 0.1505 0.1465 0.4930 0.4797
2013-14 Selkirk Steelers MJHL 57 21 15 36 0.632 0.1216 0.1122 0.3983 0.3674
■ 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 Concordia D3 MIAC SR 21 0 4 4 0.191
2016-17 Concordia D3 MIAC JR 1 0 1 1 1.000
2015-16 Concordia D3 MIAC SO 14 0 1 1 0.071
2014-15 Concordia D3 MIAC FR 13 0 0 0 0.000

NCAAe Rankings

#29295
Forward overall
#1005
Forward born in 1993
#412
in MJHL

D1 Comparables

Ali Thomas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Yasin Cissé
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Boston University
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
Will Suter
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Eli Lichtenwald
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.36 PPG
→ Union (0.68 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Woody Hudson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Wilson Farrow
Williams · 2024-25
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Andrew Kangas
St. Thomas · 2018-19
0.474 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Brad Reitter
Canton · 2015-16
0.000 No data
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.