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

Max Rasberg Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1996-01-06 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
2014-15 — NAHL 36 1 5 6 0.167 0.0612 0.0623 0.1760 0.1791
2015-16 St. Cloud Norsemen NAHL 18 2 5 7 0.389 0.1429 0.1391 0.4105 0.3996
2016-17 Connecticut Jr. Rangers USPHL-Premier-Classic 42 12 34 46 1.095 0.3074 0.2889 0.9005 0.8463
■ 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 University of New England D3 CNE FR 28 7 20 27 0.964
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.20
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.96
2017-18 · University of New England
+392.0% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#22482
Forward overall
#895
Forward born in 1996

D1 Comparables

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

D2/3 Comparables

Henry McKinney
Nazareth · 2018-19
0.536 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
J.B. Baker
Nichols · 2015-16
1.482 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Colin MacCormack
Bowdoin · 2005-06
0.840 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.