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

Emmerson Berger Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: ⚠ Missing — add in admin 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 Team Wisconsin 16U AAA 16U-AAA-W 23 0 1 1 0.043 0.0195 0.0195 — —
■ 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 Lawrence D3 NCHA FR 25 2 5 7 0.280
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.02
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.28
2025-26 · Lawrence
+1421.7% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

8%
NCAA D1
0%
NCAA D2/D3
92%
Club / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#7839
Defenseman overall
#489
in 16U-AAA-W

D1 Comparables

Anna Erickson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.13 PPG
→ Vermont (0.03 D1 FR PPG)
0.02 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Hannah Schultz
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.12 PPG
→ Union (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.02 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Katarina Seper
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.16 PPG
→ RPI (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.02 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Caroline Buckholtz
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.04 PPG
→ Brown
0.02 No data
NCAAe PPG
Natasha Rachlin
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.04 PPG
→ Harvard (0.09 D1 FR PPG)
0.02 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Anna Erickson
Vermont ·
0.030 Developing D
actual D2/3 PPG
Hannah Schultz
Union ·
0.267 Average D
actual D2/3 PPG
Katarina Seper
RPI ·
0.050 Developing D
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.