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

Emerson Mish Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: 1982-08-12 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
2002-03 King Rebellion OJHL 6 0 1 1 0.167 0.0466 0.0419 0.1150 0.1034
■ 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
2005-06 SUNY Cortland D3 — JR 9 1 3 4 0.444
2004-05 SUNY Cortland D3 — SO 13 1 9 10 0.769
2003-04 SUNY Cortland D3 — FR 3 2 1 3 1.000
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.04
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
1.00
2003-04 · SUNY Cortland
+2425.3% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

D1 Comparables

William Eiserman
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.15 PPG
→ UMass Lowell (0.14 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Jake Flynn
NAHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ UConn (0.30 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Matt Krug
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.21 PPG
→ Union (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.12 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Brandon Carlson
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.24 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville (0.11 D1 FR PPG)
0.14 Developing D
NCAAe PPG
Dominic Racobaldo
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ American International (0.12 D1 FR PPG)
0.19 Developing D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Brady Horn
Wisconsin-River Falls · 2008-09
0.393 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Vincent Unklesbay
St. Mary's · 2007-08
0.318 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Alex Kielczewski
Becker · 2015-16
0.111 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.