← New Search ↗ Social Card

Solveig Gisler Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2003-05-15 Country: Sweden
Signed Professionally
Linköping HC · SDHL

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
2019-20 Linköping HC SDHL 22 0 0 0 0.000
2020-21 Linköping HC SDHL 36 0 2 2 0.056 0.0642 0.0642
2021-22 Linköping HC SDHL 33 1 0 1 0.030 0.0350 0.0350
2022-23 Linköping HC SDHL 30 1 3 4 0.133 0.1540 0.1540
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 Merrimack D1 HEA-W 31 1 2 3 0.097
2024-25 Merrimack D1 HEA-W 34 1 7 8 0.235
2023-24 Merrimack D1 HEA-W 36 1 1 2 0.056
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.10
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.06
2023-24 · Merrimack
-44.6% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

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

NCAAe Rankings

#2972
Defenseman overall
#367
Defenseman born in 2003
#604
in SDHL

D1 Comparables

USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.04 PPG
→ Wisconsin (0.35 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.08 PPG
→ Harvard (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.08 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.13 D1 FR PPG)
0.17 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.83 PPG
→ Quinnipiac (0.43 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 0.80 PPG
→ Quinnipiac
0.13 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Wisconsin ·
0.350 Average D
actual D2/3 PPG
Harvard ·
0.100 Developing D
actual D2/3 PPG
Minnesota ·
0.129 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.