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

Sean Burke Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1989-04-19 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
2007-08 Traverse City North Stars NAHL 40 2 3 5 0.125 0.0495 0.0507 0.1312 0.1344
2008-09 Traverse City North Stars NAHL 53 8 8 16 0.302 0.1196 0.1166 0.3170 0.3091
2009-10 Traverse City North Stars NAHL 37 9 3 12 0.324 0.1285 0.1201 0.3405 0.3183
■ 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
2013-14 Finlandia D3 — SR 19 1 2 3 0.158
2012-13 Finlandia D3 — JR 25 7 10 17 0.680
2011-12 Finlandia D3 — SO 25 9 14 23 0.920
2010-11 Finlandia D3 — FR 23 6 5 11 0.478
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.10
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.48
2010-11 · Finlandia
+370.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#44970
Forward overall
#1498
Forward born in 1989
#5101
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Ali Thomas
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Eli Lichtenwald
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.36 PPG
→ Union (0.68 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Yasin Cissé
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Boston University
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
Will Suter
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Woody Hudson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Andy Singerhouse
St. Thomas · 2010-11
0.444 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Joe Harren
St. John's · 2008-09
0.421 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Lance Malark
Wisconsin-River Falls · 2004-05
0.368 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.