Luke Esposito Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1993-10-18 Country: USA

Set Commitment

School

Type

Date (optional)

Detected conference: () — projections will update automatically.

Notes (optional)

Projecting as:

Show:

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
2012-13	Chilliwack Chiefs	BCHL	55	17	54	71	1.291	0.4974	0.4948	1.8775	1.8676
2023-24	Augsburger Panther	DEL	52	10	24	34	0.654	1.6345	1.5119	5.5418	5.1261
2024-25	Adler Mannheim	DEL	49	16	22	38	0.775	1.9387	1.7042	6.5734	5.7784

■ 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	Harvard	D1	ECAC	SR	36	16	20	36	1.000
2015-16	Harvard	D1	ECAC	JR	34	5	16	21	0.618
2014-15	Harvard	D1	ECAC	SO	32	5	12	17	0.531
2013-14	Harvard	D1	ECAC	FR	29	5	10	15	0.517

Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year

Projected PPG

0.42

before college

→

Actual FR PPG

0.52

2013-14 · Harvard

+22.1% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

🏒 NHL / Pro Track — production profile is consistent with players who bypassed or minimized college hockey

NCAA D1

NCAA D2/D3

100%

NHL / Pro

NCAAe Rankings

#2892

Forward overall

#154

Forward born in 1993

D2/3 Comparables

Neil Trimm

Neumann · 2003-04

1.800 Elite

actual D2/3 PPG

Arkhip Ledenkov

St. Scholastica · 2018-19

1.636 Elite

actual D2/3 PPG

Brandon Osmundson

Utica · 2018-19

1.448 Elite

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.