← 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 0.0756 0.0815 0.2173 0.2341
2010-11 Traverse City North Stars NAHL 13 5 2 7 0.538 0.1978 0.2030 0.5684 0.5835
2011-12 Kalamazoo Jr. K-Wings NAHL 58 11 21 32 0.552 0.2027 0.1981 0.5823 0.5690
2012-13 Kalamazoo Jr. K-Wings NAHL 59 20 28 48 0.814 0.2989 0.2771 0.8588 0.7961
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
+217.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#19297
Forward overall
#731
Forward born in 1992
#1213
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Boston University
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.67 PPG
→ Penn State (0.53 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Average
NCAAe PPG
WHL · 2012-13 · 0.86 PPG
→ Northern Michigan (0.42 D1 FR PPG)
0.37 Average
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Endicott · 2024-25
1.000 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Wentworth · 2000-01
1.069 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
St. Norbert · 2010-11
0.464 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.