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

Rory Gagnon Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1995-08-23 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
2014-15 Hawkesbury Hawks CCHL 49 13 18 31 0.633 0.2020 0.1988 0.4898 0.4819
■ 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
2018-19 Hamilton D1 — SR 25 8 11 19 0.760
2018-19 Hamilton D3 NESCAC SR 25 8 11 19 0.760
2017-18 Hamilton D3 NESCAC JR 22 13 6 19 0.864
2016-17 Hamilton D3 NESCAC SO 27 6 12 18 0.667
2015-16 Hamilton D3 NESCAC FR 20 2 5 7 0.350
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.17
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.35
2015-16 · Hamilton
+105.6% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#27862
Forward overall
#1090
Forward born in 1995
#741
in CCHL

D1 Comparables

Jake Wood
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ RPI (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Conor Andrle
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Army (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Average
NCAAe PPG
Josh Erickson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Landon Smith
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.79 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Zach Saar
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Penn State (0.33 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Max Routledge
Canton · 2016-17
0.619 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Carl D'Amour-Belizario
Hobart · 2012-13
0.593 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Mitch Walinski
Salve Regina · 2017-18
0.692 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.