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

Emma Flynn Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward 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
2014-15 Loomis Chaffee NE-Prep-Girls 23 0 2 2 0.090 0.0558 0.0558 — —
2015-16 Loomis Chaffee NE-Prep-Girls 27 0 0 0 0.000 — — — —
2016-17 Connecticut Polar Bears 19U 19U-AAA-W 42 21 27 48 1.143 0.3892 0.3892 — —
■ 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 Amherst D3 NESCAC JR 25 4 13 17 0.680
2018-19 Amherst D3 NESCAC SO 24 4 14 18 0.750
2017-18 Amherst D3 NESCAC FR 26 7 9 16 0.615
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.22
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.61
2017-18 · Amherst
+180.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#4502
Forward overall
#289
in NE-Prep-Girls

D1 Comparables

Katie Rooney
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.52 PPG
→ RPI (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.40 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Darby Dodds
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 2.52 PPG
→ Lindenwood
0.40 No data
NCAAe PPG
Corbin Boyd
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 2.42 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.39 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Lauren Hespenheide
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 2.40 PPG
→ St. Cloud State (0.26 D1 FR PPG)
0.39 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Rebecca Lindblad
USHS-W · 2013-14 · 1.43 PPG
→ UConn (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.42 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Courtney Moriarty
SUNY Plattsburgh · 2013-14
1.259 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Emily Martino
William Smith · 2014-15
0.786 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Emma Faso
William Smith · 2016-17
0.000 No data
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.