← New Search ↗ Social Card

Zach Werenski Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1997-07-19 Country: USA
2015 · Round 1, Pick #8  ·  Columbus Blue Jackets Columbus Blue Jackets
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
2013-14 NTDP-U18 51 8 24 32 0.627 0.4664 0.4809 2.3415 2.4144
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
2015-16 Michigan D1 BigTen SO 36 11 25 36 1.000
2014-15 Michigan D1 BigTen FR 35 9 16 25 0.714
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.45
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.71
2014-15 · Michigan
+57.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#1854
Defenseman overall
#432
Defenseman born in 1997

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.55 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.49 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.83 PPG
→ Boston College (0.37 D1 FR PPG)
0.52 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.54 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.50 D1 FR PPG)
0.34 Elite D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.67 PPG
→ Cornell
0.41 No data
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Elmira · 2014-15
0.800 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Southern New Hampshire · 2016-17
0.593 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Hobart · 2016-17
1.231 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.