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

Emily Ach 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
2012-13 Osseo/Park Center (women) USHS-MN-W 24 4 1 5 0.208 0.0315 0.0315 — —
2013-14 Osseo/Park Center (women) USHS-MN-W 24 4 3 7 0.292 0.0440 0.0440 — —
2014-15 Osseo/Park Center (women) USHS-MN-W 25 16 13 29 1.160 0.1752 0.1752 — —
2015-16 Osseo/Park Center (women) USHS-MN-W 25 22 19 41 1.640 0.2476 0.2476 — —
■ 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 D3 MIAC — 26 11 8 19 0.731
2018-19 Augsburg D3 MIAC — 26 9 7 16 0.615
2017-18 Augsburg D3 MIAC — 25 4 6 10 0.400
2016-17 Augsburg D3 MIAC — 27 5 6 11 0.407
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.19
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.41
2016-17 · Augsburg
+117.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#4249
Forward overall
#709
in USHS-MN-W

D1 Comparables

Taylor Williamson
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.64 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.40 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Average
NCAAe PPG
Emily Gunderson
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.64 PPG
→ Lindenwood (0.17 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Sophia Kunin
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.62 PPG
→ Wisconsin (0.42 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Average
NCAAe PPG
Christi Vetter
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.67 PPG
→ Penn State
0.25 No data
NCAAe PPG
Danielle Marmer
NE-Prep-Girls · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Quinnipiac
0.24 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Taylor Williamson
Minnesota ·
0.395 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Emily Gunderson
Lindenwood ·
0.171 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Sophia Kunin
Wisconsin ·
0.425 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.