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

Clay Berger Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 1995-07-20 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 Boston Jr. Bandits EHL 43 8 20 28 0.651 0.2292 0.2303 0.3193 0.3208
■ 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
2018-19 Tufts D1 — SR 25 6 2 8 0.320
2018-19 Tufts D3 NESCAC SR 25 6 2 8 0.320
2017-18 Tufts D3 NESCAC JR 25 0 3 3 0.120
2016-17 Tufts D3 NESCAC SO 22 3 2 5 0.227
2015-16 Tufts D3 NESCAC FR 24 2 9 11 0.458
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.20
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.46
2015-16 · Tufts
+132.5% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#23910
Forward overall
#909
Forward born in 1995
#617
in EHL

D1 Comparables

Jake Wood
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.43 PPG
→ RPI (0.24 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Zach Saar
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Penn State (0.33 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Alfred Larsson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Merrimack (0.20 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Matt Pohlkamp
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Bowling Green (0.41 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Average
NCAAe PPG
Brett Skibba
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ UConn (0.23 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Owen Watson
SUNY Potsdam · 2022-23
0.308 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Bobby Polachek
Fredonia · 2013-14
0.958 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Dennis Kubat
St. Scholastica · 2006-07
0.286 Developing
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.