← New Search ↗ Social Card

Garrett Horsager Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 2002-02-02 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
2019-20 Rosemount USHS-MN 27 1 15 16 0.593 0.1595 0.1595 0.1439 0.1439
2020-21 Oklahoma Warriors NAHL 8 0 1 1 0.125 0.0495 0.0495 0.1312 0.1312
2021-22 Oklahoma Warriors NAHL 50 2 7 9 0.180 0.0713 0.0699 0.1890 0.1854
2022-23 Oklahoma Warriors NAHL 57 10 18 28 0.491 0.1946 0.1813 0.5157 0.4804
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
2025-26 Bentley D1 AHA JR 23 3 7 10 0.435
2024-25 Bentley D1 AHA SR 37 0 9 9 0.243
2023-24 Bentley D1 AHA JR 35 2 9 11 0.314
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.13
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.31
2023-24 · Bentley
+143.5% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

20%
NCAA D1
10%
NCAA D2/D3
65%
Age-Out / Club
2%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#10900
Defenseman overall
#2285
Defenseman born in 2002

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.18 PPG
→ RIT (0.05 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 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 (0.06 D1 FR PPG)
0.05 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 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.13 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Wisconsin-Stevens Point · 2016-17
0.577 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Amherst · 2010-11
0.640 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Skidmore · 2016-17
0.478 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.