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

Jeremy Finger Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1991-10-01 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
2010-11 Austin Bruins NAHL 43 7 5 12 0.279 0.1025 0.1032 0.2946 0.2965
2011-12 Austin Bruins NAHL 59 18 16 34 0.576 0.2117 0.2026 0.6083 0.5822
■ 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 UMass Boston D3 MASCAC SR 21 2 6 8 0.381
2014-15 UMass Boston D3 MASCAC JR 25 7 12 19 0.760
2013-14 UMass Boston D3 MASCAC SO 26 6 11 17 0.654
2012-13 UMass Boston D3 MASCAC FR 26 8 7 15 0.577
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.14
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.58
2012-13 · UMass Boston
+313.8% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#31157
Forward overall
#1080
Forward born in 1991
#2876
in NAHL

D1 Comparables

Woody Hudson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ St. Lawrence (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Emil Romig
NAHL · 2012-13 · 1.00 PPG
→ Denver (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.35 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Tyler Deresky
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.79 PPG
→ Bentley (0.19 D1 FR PPG)
0.28 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Cullen Hurley
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.38 PPG
→ Wisconsin
0.21 No data
NCAAe PPG
Max Birkinbine
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Air Force (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Grant Newcomer
Concordia · 2021-22
0.518 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Jake Bergstrom
Hamline · 2024-25
0.000 No data
actual D2/3 PPG
Parker Wood
Endicott · 2014-15
0.875 Strong
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.