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

Anders Bjork Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-08-05 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 U.S. National U17 Team NTDP-U18 56 12 12 24 0.429 0.3323 0.3450 1.5952 1.6563
2013-14 U.S. National U18 Team NTDP-U18 61 21 21 42 0.689 0.5339 0.5251 2.5625 2.5203
■ 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
2016-17 Notre Dame D1 — JR 39 21 31 52 1.333
2015-16 Notre Dame D1 — SO 35 12 23 35 1.000
2014-15 Notre Dame D1 — FR 41 7 15 22 0.537
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.39
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.54
2014-15 · Notre Dame
+38.4% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#6853
Forward overall
#317
Forward born in 1996

D1 Comparables

Connor Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.73 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.34 D1 FR PPG)
0.48 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Hudson Fasching
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.53 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.75 D1 FR PPG)
0.41 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Matthew Weis
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.71 PPG
→ Ohio State (0.67 D1 FR PPG)
0.46 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Gabe Guertler
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.85 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.55 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Sean Malone
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.66 PPG
→ Harvard (0.65 D1 FR PPG)
0.50 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Ryan Reifler
Elmira · 2017-18
1.067 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Nick Ford
Elmira · 2014-15
0.800 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Rihards Marenis
Aurora · 2013-14
1.000 Elite
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.