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 0.2122 0.2277 0.4726 0.5072
2011-12 Winnipeg Saints MJHL 42 10 23 33 0.786 0.2223 0.2274 0.4951 0.5064
2012-13 — MJHL 55 24 19 43 0.782 0.2212 0.2152 0.4926 0.4793
2013-14 Selkirk Steelers MJHL 57 21 15 36 0.632 0.1787 0.1648 0.3980 0.3671
■ 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

#19950
Forward overall
#762
Forward born in 1993
#504
in MJHL

D1 Comparables

Ali Thomas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Ricky DeRosa
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.71 PPG
→ Penn State (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Average
NCAAe PPG
Aidan Cavallini
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.65 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.22 No data
NCAAe PPG
Will Suter
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Bradley Duwe
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.65 PPG
→ Alaska Anchorage (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Andrew Kangas
St. Thomas · 2018-19
0.474 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Zachary Vierling
Wisconsin-Stout · 2010-11
0.385 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Topher Flanagan
Amherst · 2011-12
0.389 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.