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

Ben Henderson Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-03-04 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
2014-15 — NA3HL 38 5 13 18 0.474 0.0594 0.0605 0.1495 0.1522
2015-16 Coulee Region Chill NA3HL 43 21 18 39 0.907 0.1138 0.1103 0.2863 0.2774
■ 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 Augsburg D1 MIAC SO 26 1 7 8 0.308
2019-20 Augsburg D3 MIAC — 26 1 7 8 0.308
2018-19 Augsburg D1 MIAC FR 14 1 0 1 0.071
2018-19 Augsburg D3 MIAC — 14 1 0 1 0.071
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.08
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.07
2018-19 · Augsburg
-7.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#33804
Forward overall
#1438
Forward born in 1996
#1402
in NA3HL

D1 Comparables

Stanislav Dzakhov
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Niagara (0.44 D1 FR PPG)
0.15 Average
NCAAe PPG
Ben Ostlie
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Notre Dame
0.13 No data
NCAAe PPG
Tayler Munson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.31 PPG
→ Alaska Fairbanks (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Average
NCAAe PPG
William Messa
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Northeastern
0.12 No data
NCAAe PPG
Alexander Dahl
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.21 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

David Moncur
Wisconsin-Superior · 2003-04
0.360 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Shane Beaulieu
SUNY Cortland · 2016-17
0.375 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Matthew Dozois
Wentworth · 2008-09
0.667 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.