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

Tyler Hackett Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-11-25 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
2015-16 Hartford Jr. Wolfpack EHL 16 2 6 8 0.500 0.0732 0.0753 0.2452 0.2522
■ 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
2019-20 Post D1 — SR 26 12 16 28 1.077
2019-20 Post D2 NE10 SR 26 12 16 28 1.077
2018-19 Post D1 — JR 25 9 6 15 0.600
2018-19 Post D2 NE10 JR 25 9 6 15 0.600
2017-18 Post D2 NE10 SO 22 13 9 22 1.000
2016-17 Post D2 NE10 FR 11 0 1 1 0.091
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.06
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.09
2016-17 · Post
+40.9% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#32015
Forward overall
#1348
Forward born in 1996
#1075
in EHL

D1 Comparables

Sebastian Weberg
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Colgate
0.13 No data
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Hynes
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.28 PPG
→ Union (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Canon Pieper
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.28 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.08 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Austin Vieth
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.28 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tim Lappin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Brown (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Travis Erstad
Wisconsin-Stevens Point · 2007-08
0.692 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Dan Swanson
Concordia · 2004-05
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Troy MacTavish
Wisconsin-Superior · 2016-17
0.538 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.