← New Search ↗ Social Card

Max Pernhem Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1993-04-28 Country: Sweden
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 IF Troja-Ljungby U20 SHL-J20 39 1 1 2 0.051 0.0283 0.0296 0.0685 0.0716
2011-12 IF Björklöven U20 SHL-J20 37 2 4 6 0.162 0.0896 0.0896 0.2165 0.2165
2012-13 Tingsryds AIF U20 SHL-J20 45 1 10 11 0.244 0.1350 0.1282 0.3262 0.3098
2013-14 Minot Minotauros NAHL 51 2 5 7 0.137 0.0488 0.0456 0.1442 0.1349
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
2017-18 Augsburg D3 MIAC SR 23 1 15 16 0.696
2016-17 Augsburg D3 MIAC JR 28 4 11 15 0.536
2015-16 Augsburg D3 MIAC SO 22 4 6 10 0.455
2014-15 Augsburg D3 MIAC FR 15 2 5 7 0.467
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.07
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.47
2014-15 · Augsburg
+529.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#18965
Defenseman overall
#1845
Defenseman born in 1993

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.37 PPG
→ Brown (0.04 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.08 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.04 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.11 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

SUNY Geneseo · 2021-22
0.222 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
St. Scholastica · 2013-14
0.261 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Connecticut College · 2014-15
0.400 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.