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

Braden Pohlman Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Defense DOB: ⚠ Missing — add in admin 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
2021-22 Kent School NE-Prep 28 1 2 3 0.107 0.0207 0.0207 0.0490 0.0490
2022-23 Kent School NE-Prep 25 3 4 7 0.280 0.0540 0.0540 0.1281 0.1281
2023-24 Kent School NE-Prep 28 3 15 18 0.643 0.1240 0.1240 0.2942 0.2942
■ 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 Wesleyan D3 NESCAC SO 16 0 1 1 0.062
2024-25 Wesleyan D3 NESCAC — 7 0 0 0 0.000

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

12%
NCAA D2/D3
2%
Club / ACHA
48%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#14867
Defenseman overall
#856
in NE-Prep

D1 Comparables

Kyle Mackey
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.16 PPG
→ Air Force (0.21 D1 FR PPG)
0.09 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Zach Yoder
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.10 PPG
→ Air Force (0.31 D1 FR PPG)
0.06 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Ruslan Pedan
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.33 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.34 D1 FR PPG)
0.20 Strong D
NCAAe PPG
Jake Bischoff
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.17 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.25 D1 FR PPG)
0.10 Average D
NCAAe PPG
Cutler Martin
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.27 PPG
→ Michigan (0.47 D1 FR PPG)
0.16 Strong D
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Jeffrey Gauld
Canton · 2015-16
0.818 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Cody Pisarczyk
Wisconsin-Stevens Point · 2022-23
0.462 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Ben Gamache
Hobart · 2009-10
0.560 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.