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

Sean McWhinnie Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2003-10-23 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
2022-23 Worcester Jr. Railers EHL 39 7 3 10 0.256 0.0902 0.0934 0.1257 0.1302
■ 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
2025-26 Salem State D3 MASCAC — 11 0 0 0 0.000
2024-25 Salem State D3 MASCAC — 7 2 0 2 0.286
2023-24 Anna Maria D3 MASCAC — 20 0 2 2 0.100
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.08
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.10
2023-24 · Anna Maria
+25.0% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

2%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
42%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#48734
Forward overall
#3256
Forward born in 2003
#2289
in EHL

D1 Comparables

Conor Andrle
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Army (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Average
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Hynes
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.28 PPG
→ Union (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Sebastian Weberg
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.23 PPG
→ Colgate
0.14 No data
NCAAe PPG
Dylan Gareau
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Clarkson (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Canon Pieper
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.28 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.08 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Andrew Graves
Wisconsin-Stevens Point · 2010-11
0.167 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Noah Wild
Post · 2014-15
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Tyler Gardiner
Southern Maine · 2016-17
0.421 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.