← New Search ↗ Social Card

Taylor Burden Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1992-02-25 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
2009-10 Traverse City North Stars NAHL 34 2 5 7 0.206 0.0765 0.0824 0.2180 0.2349
2010-11 Traverse City North Stars NAHL 13 5 2 7 0.538 0.1999 0.2052 0.5702 0.5853
2011-12 Kalamazoo Jr. K-Wings NAHL 58 11 21 32 0.552 0.2048 0.2001 0.5841 0.5708
2012-13 Kalamazoo Jr. K-Wings NAHL 59 20 28 48 0.814 0.3021 0.2800 0.8614 0.7985
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 Wisconsin-River Falls D3 BigTen SR 13 4 3 7 0.538
2015-16 Wisconsin-River Falls D3 BigTen JR 26 4 11 15 0.577
2014-15 Wisconsin-River Falls D3 BigTen SO 28 4 13 17 0.607
2013-14 Wisconsin-River Falls D3 BigTen FR 12 2 6 8 0.667
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.21
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.67
2013-14 · Wisconsin-River Falls
+214.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#14792
Forward overall
#639
Forward born in 1992
#1051
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.71 PPG
→ Penn State (0.38 D1 FR PPG)
0.24 Average
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing
NCAAe PPG
WHL · 2012-13 · 0.86 PPG
→ Northern Michigan (0.42 D1 FR PPG)
0.37 Average
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.67 PPG
→ Penn State (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.38 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Wentworth · 2000-01
1.069 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
St. Norbert · 2010-11
0.464 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
SUNY Cortland · 2010-11
0.640 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.